• 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

The Queen is nominally a figurehead but actually has secretive and opaque 'consent' powers that allow her to vet and lobby on legislation. She has used this to prevent transparency on the Royal Family's finances as well as to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.theguardian.com

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

Exclusive: Documents also shed light on Queen’s ongoing exemption from race and sex discrimination laws
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Plus Prince Charles' charity foundation is being investigated for cash for honours corruption.

www.theguardian.com

Met investigating cash-for-honours claims linked to Prince’s Foundation

Metropolitan police have launched investigation into allegations linked to Prince Charles charity
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Removing the Royal Family wouldn't be an end to corruption (not even close), but the idea that they are nothing more than a ceremonial rubber-stamp is for the birds.
 
There's are no upsides of having someone who claims to have the God given right to sit on a golden throne wearing a silly hat encrusted with stones stolen from some other places, while pretending to be politically neutral, all of this while their lifestyle is being funded by taxpayers.


 
NarohDethan said:
There's are no upsides of having someone who claims to have the God given right to sit on a golden throne wearing a silly hat encrusted with stones stolen from some other places, while pretending to be politically neutral, all of this while their lifestyle is being funded by taxpayers.


Click to expand...

Good old Shaun. He's a good egg.

Also I'd forgotten about the time she read that pro-austerity thing while sat in her golden chair and bejewelled hat. Fired. Into the sun. At the earliest possible convenience.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Here's a much better one
netivist.org

Constitutional monarchy vs republic: pros and cons

Find out which is the most popular form of government. Constitutional monarchy vs republic: we contrast their history, pros and cons. Join our debate!
netivist.org netivist.org
Click to expand...
Okay I’m gonna level with you, I’m a communist, there is less than zero chance I will ever support a monarchy. You seem like a nice guy but this is a losing battle you are fighting here. And if most people here have less radical beliefs than me and are starkly anti-monarchy, imagine how I feel lol
 
NarohDethan said:
There's are no upsides of having someone who claims to have the God given right to sit on a golden throne wearing a silly hat encrusted with stones stolen from some other places, while pretending to be politically neutral, all of this while their lifestyle is being funded by taxpayers.


Click to expand...


maebe said:
Good old Shaun. He's a good egg.

Also I'd forgotten about the time she read that pro-austerity thing while sat in her golden chair and bejewelled hat. Fired. Into the sun. At the earliest possible convenience.
Click to expand...
The first thing I have to mention is the Queen doesn't write the opening of parliament speech, that's the government who pen's it.

The reason I am linking these articles is to show that becoming a Republic isn't as simple as just getting rid of the royal family, they are some other down sides that you aren't even considering because you hate the monarchy so much.
I should state up front that I absolutely hate the Royal family and how despicable they are, but from listening to both sides and reading up on this is that British Republic wouldn't just be the exact same just without a monarchy, it could become much shittier place, it could become a better place too.

It's just that the vibe I am getting from this thread is that none of you would care if a United Republic is a much shittier place to live as long as the monarchy is gone.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Here's a much better one
netivist.org

Constitutional monarchy vs republic: pros and cons

Find out which is the most popular form of government. Constitutional monarchy vs republic: we contrast their history, pros and cons. Join our debate!
netivist.org netivist.org
Click to expand...
I'm just not even sure half of this article was well thought out. I mean, in the Pros for a Monarchy, we have:

Advantages of a constitutional monarchy:
  • Stability. The head of state is appointed for a very long perdiod of time, usually until she/he abdicates or die. This gives the country more stability in comparison with republics where the head of state changes every few years.
  • Education. In a monarchy, the future head of state is known from birth, therefore she/he is raised and educated accordingly. Monarchs are usually well prepared for their role and enjoy a priviledged multidisciplinary education.
  • Neutrality. The head of state is not a politician, therefore is not tied to any particular party. She/he can ensure neutrality and balance while in power.
  • No election cost. In many countries, the campaign to elect the head of state can be very expensive. In monarchy, succession has little costs.
  • Less corruption? Advocates of constitutional monarchy claim that knowing you will serve for a life term reduces the risk of corruption, while an elected politician may feel the urge to take advantage of his position knowing it will not last. Presidents may have shorter term goals and incentives, while the monarch may care more about the long term. After all they want their children to inherit the throne and don't want them to have to face a complicated future.
Click to expand...

Most of these read like someone theorizing pros and cons without actually looking to monarchies, in practice, through history. Especially in regards to neutrality, corruption, stability (how many monarchies have been overthrown, and overthrown DUE to instability/squalor?), and even education (education does not equal good governance).

It's also not just black and white. Even today, we have democracies/republics that feel more authoritarian in nature and in practice due to power and privilege of the elites in power.
 
Anton Sugar said:
I'm just not even sure half of this article was well thought out. I mean, in the Pros for a Monarchy, we have:



Most of these read like someone theorizing pros and cons without actually looking to monarchies, in practice, through history. Especially in regards to neutrality, corruption, stability (how many monarchies have been overthrown, and overthrown DUE to instability/squalor?), and even education (education does not equal good governance).

It's also not just black and white. Even today, we have democracies/republics that feel more authoritarian in nature and in practice due to power and privilege of the elites in power.
Click to expand...
My point is that many people in here hate the monarchy so much that I don't think they would even consider the downsides of an United Republic.
 
0
EddyZacianLand said:
The first thing I have to mention is the Queen doesn't write the opening of parliament speech, that's the government who pen's it.

The reason I am linking these articles is to show that becoming a Republic isn't as simple as just getting rid of the royal family, they are some other down sides that you aren't even considering because you hate the monarchy so much.
I should state up front that I absolutely hate the Royal family and how despicable they are, but from listening to both sides and reading up on this is that British Republic wouldn't just be the exact same just without a monarchy, it could become much shittier place, it could become a better place too.

It's just that the vibe I am getting from this thread is that none of you would care if a United Republic is a much shittier place to live as long as the monarchy is gone.
Click to expand...
You don't have the misfortune of living in Britain, do you Eddy?
 
EddyZacianLand said:
Uhhh why??
Click to expand...
Because you are young and it’s understandable for you to not have fully formed ideology about why the British monarchy is bad. They probably were gonna dunk harder on you and realized that it would be mean-spirited and pointless because you are clearly still figuring things out and people need space to do that at your age.
 
vtr07ij8pgj81.jpg
 
"Neutrality: The head of state is not a politician, therefore is not tied to any particular party. She/he can ensure neutrality and balance while in power."

That's a nice way of saying they won't accomplish anything.
 
0
Eddy feel free to post what you want about what you want. It was news and a valid topic.

Plenty will accept your views on things and discuss them in a civil manner going forward.
 
0
I got banned from Twitter for saying how I really felt about that. Of course the queen doesn't get banned from Twitter for her family's genocidal actions but whatever.
 
Army of Light said:
I got banned from Twitter for saying how I really felt about that. Of course the queen doesn't get banned from Twitter for her family's genocidal actions but whatever.
Click to expand...
I actually got a week long ban for defending her.
Someone was asking why is this newsworthy, I replied with she's 95 she could die.
 
0
Monarchs are literally dictators and always have been, which is why they should be abolished. The Queen of England is only not a dictator because she doesn't actually wield power. Also the notion that the queen is not a politician is laughable on its face. She is a politician by definition. Every Queen and King is a politician. The fact that they're not elected doesn't make them not a politician.

Nobody should hold a political position just because of their birthright. Imagine if you were interviewing people for a important job that had life or death consequences. You were going through all the different candidates in the world for that job. You needed to make sure it was the best possible person. What is the probability that the best possible person for a job, the one who actually knows what they're doing, the one who has the right set of values, what is the probability that that person just coincidentally happens to be the firstborn child of the previous person to hold that job? Failsons taking positions of their parents is a long-running problem. I'm not even getting into the possibility of a hereditary monarch having a cognitive impairment who gets the position in spite of that just because they were the first born assigned male at birth person. Even without that possibility, the next person in line, who cannot be removed from office without being killed or resigning, that person might just be an incompetent train wreck.

I suspect the people who continue to support the idea of a monarchy have a personal stake in that monarchy. They are people who are likely upper class and they may have inherited privileges of their own. For God's sake, the rationale for the monarchy is that God decided that they should be king. God. The creator of the universe. Are we actually believing in mythological figures and making decisions on that basis still? There is no god and if there was a creator of the universe what would the creator care about the political coming and goings of one single species on one corner of one Galaxy. These people are ghouls who just want to stay in power. Democracies are nicer places to live because the people who run them are forced to please the people that they have dominion over.
 
Army of Light said:
Monarchs are literally dictators and always have been, which is why they should be abolished. The Queen of England is only not a dictator because she doesn't actually wield power. Also the notion that the queen is not a politician is laughable on its face. She is a politician by definition. Every Queen and King is a politician. The fact that they're not elected doesn't make them not a politician.

Nobody should hold a political position just because of their birthright. Imagine if you were interviewing people for a important job that had life or death consequences. You were going through all the different candidates in the world for that job. You needed to make sure it was the best possible person. What is the probability that the best possible person for a job, the one who actually knows what they're doing, the one who has the right set of values, what is the probability that that person just coincidentally happens to be the firstborn child of the previous person to hold that job? Failsons taking positions of their parents is a long-running problem. I'm not even getting into the possibility of a hereditary monarch having a cognitive impairment who gets the position in spite of that just because they were the first born assigned male at birth person. Even without that possibility, the next person in line, who cannot be removed from office without being killed or resigning, that person might just be an incompetent train wreck.

I suspect the people who continue to support the idea of a monarchy have a personal stake in that monarchy. They are people who are likely upper class and they may have inherited privileges of their own. For God's sake, the rationale for the monarchy is that God decided that they should be king. God. The creator of the universe. Are we actually believing in mythological figures and making decisions on that basis still? There is no god and if there was a creator of the universe what would the creator care about the political coming and goings of one single species on one corner of one Galaxy. These people are ghouls who just want to stay in power. Democracies are nicer places to live because the people who run them are forced to please the people that they have dominion over.
Click to expand...
I think many people aren't actually for the monarchy but against Britian becoming a Republic, they think Britian could become a lot more divided than it is rn if it was one.
 
0
Army of Light said:
I suspect the people who continue to support the idea of a monarchy have a personal stake in that monarchy. They are people who are likely upper class and they may have inherited privileges of their own. For God's sake, the rationale for the monarchy is that God decided that they should be king. God. The creator of the universe. Are we actually believing in mythological figures and making decisions on that basis still? There is no god and if there was a creator of the universe what would the creator care about the political coming and goings of one single species on one corner of one Galaxy. These people are ghouls who just want to stay in power. Democracies are nicer places to live because the people who run them are forced to please the people that they have dominion over.
Click to expand...

Yougov surveys in the UK have shown there is very little difference in support for/against the monarchy by social class.

(Saying that democracies have to please the people they have dominion over given the current state of the UK leadership whose entire goal is to be as antagonistic and divisive to the population as possible sure is a take.)
 
Linkstrikesback said:
Yougov surveys in the UK have shown there is very little difference in support for/against the monarchy by social class.

(Saying that democracies have to please the people they have dominion over given the current state of the UK leadership whose entire goal is to be as antagonistic and divisive to the population as possible sure is a take.)
Click to expand...
I do wonder if Brexit has scared people away from wanting another big change
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom