Poll: The Monarchy

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I dont appreciate being told I have an inferiority complex by someone that doesn't know me. Who are you, a forum troll version of Sigmund Freud?

Do not make personal attacks on me in future.

My statement is based on my observation of your contributions to this thread. If you feel that my comments about you having an inferior complex is inaccurate, you're welcome to disproof it. However, based on what I've seen so far, you've a distinct problem with people from what you consider 'upper class' or 'aristocrats' and certainly with people who're 'royalties'. You're judging people based on their family and what they are rather than who they are. That is what I consider an inferior complex - an irrational feeling towards someone who has no particular reason to be better than you.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by spikegifted
My statement is based on my observation of your contributions to this thread. If you feel that my comments about you having an inferior complex is inaccurate, you're welcome to disproof it. However, based on what I've seen so far, you've a distinct problem with people from what you consider 'upper class' or 'aristocrats' and certainly with people who're 'royalties'. You're judging people based on their family and what they are rather than who they are. That is what I consider an inferior complex - an irrational feeling towards someone who has no particular reason to be better than you.

All throughout this thread, I have repeated again and again the fact that I am against the concept of someone having a birthright based on their parents. This has nothing to do with my having an inferiority complex towards upper class people. That as absoutely ridiculous. It wouldn't matter what class the royal family were. I have a problem with people given special birthrights in all forms, whether that is hereditry peers in the House Of Lords, or the Prince of Wales.

As I have said again and again, I am fundamentally opposed to it NOT because of the people that are given this birthright, but of the concept of the birthright itself. I firmly believe that people should earn their position in society, in the same way that Commonos MP's (as opposed to Lords) do.

My entire line of argument is based on equality. If you had read what I had written then you would have realised that. I do not feel inferior to any of the Royal family. Given the choice of being a royal or a "commoner" I'd take the commoner any day.

I am not judging the people that are given these birthrights. I am judging the birthrights themselves.

The suggestion that I have to prove to you that I do not have an inferiority complex is absolutely ludicrous. What do you want me to do, go to a psychiatrist and get a certificate? If you want to debase my comments (that have nothing at all to do with inferiority) with personal attacks then I do not thing you are on the right forums. That's not how it works here.

[daverobev]

Quite frankly, I see where you are coming from, and...while valid, its soooooooooo....well okay think how many Ghaneans there are. They have got considerably less birthrights than us.

So, instead of worrying about a couple of hundred royals who have marginally more than "us" from birth, worry about the millions and millions of Africans, Chinese, Mexicans, and so on that get crap from birth.

The distinction between, say, Prince Charles, me, and your average african, IMO (please note the IMO), places me a damn site closer to Charlie than it does the african.

IF you feel that strongly about Royalty, then (again IMO), you should give ANY SPARE MONEY you have to charity to try and help those less fortunate than yourself. Which a lot of the Royals do, at least to some degree.

Also, birthright does include inheritance....if your fathers fathers fathers (etc) got knighted and got loads of money that your family has kept, how is that different from your father making a lot of money in the city, from share dealing, that your family has kept?

That money brings with it status and therefore "rights" of a kind: the right to sleep soundly at night (because you can afford soundproofing in your bedroom). Okay admitted that example is trivial, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.

But life ain't fair, and thats the way it is. In a perfect society maybe there wouldn't be Royalty, or drunks, or ugly people, or stupid people...but that would be quite boring. I think I'd prefer to have a bit of spice (ie, my bloody housemates- I live in a rented room in a house because of where I live, The South, and where my mum lives, Scotland...and because I can't afford a place of my own- who decided to have a party at half 1 last night) than for it to be totally equal (ok obviously we'd be better off with more equality in a lot of places, don't get me wrong).

I'm just saying....Society has created these rights, they don't actually exist per se.

[spikegifted]

I'm taking is to its most fundamental level here, so stay with me. I'm also taking the literal meaning of the 'birthright': a right of possession or privilege one has from birth, esp. as the eldest son. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990 edition)

I find it very hard to see your line of reasoning: "I am not judging the people that are given these birthrights. I am judging the birthrights themselves." So, what is your point? Birthrights by themselves means very little. Birthrights only mean something when you apply them to people and the interpretations of birthrights by people transform a concept into reality. What do you want people do? Give up their inheritance and their rights at birth and only give it back to them if they 'deserve' them?

You're claiming your arguement is based on equality, but this world is not about equality but the utilization of opportunities. Having birthrights is just another manifestation of opportunities. However, there're plenty of people who are born of 'high class' turned out to be losers and there're a lots of people who're born of poverty that turned out to be winners.

The whole point about birthrights is that the fruits of previous generation(s) can be passed down to future generations. That's what your ancesters and mine and almost everyone elses' had try to do and that's what I hope you and I will do in the future. These actions are to create a better starting conditions for our offsprings than other, less fortunate, people. This is birthright. The very fact that we're living in the UK is to a certain extent our birthrights. Are you suggesting that we should give up our citizenship and in exchange, work our way through the poorest of conditions to see if we deserve to live in this country?

Why should you be so against the whole idea of birthrights? I come for a relatively 'normal' family, 'normal' in the sense that our family is not rich but not poor either. But I've my birthrights too - my parents own an apartment, my family has a car, my family has 'family treasures' (meaning things passed down from previous generation(s)). I'm sure you've your birthrights, too. Did you have to earn yours? Or did your parents provided them? Even in the poorest corners of the world, there're birthrights - a tree/oxen/goat/etc being given to a child. You want them to earn that too?

[Saracen]

Originally posted by spikegifted
Deal with your own inferior complex .......

That kind of remark is simply not called for on these forums.

If everyone starts making personal remarks, it will not be long before any reasoned debate descends into a slanging match.

For the sake of peace among members, PLEASE don't do that again. Debate the issues, but refrain from personal remarks. If I see it again, the posts concerned will be removed.

Thank you.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by spikegifted

I find it very hard to see your line of reasoning: "I am not judging the people that are given these birthrights. I am judging the birthrights themselves." So, what is your point? Birthrights by themselves means very little. Birthrights only mean something when you apply them to people and the interpretations of birthrights by people transform a concept into reality. What do you want people do? Give up their inheritance and their rights at birth and only give it back to them if they 'deserve' them?

Birthrights mean very little? Are you serious? So the birthright of being a hereditry peer in the House of Lords means very little? This statement is just not true. Birthrights can mean a great deal. Take a look at the caste system in India. The caste you are born into defines an enormous amount about you. What sort of jobs you can do, what sort of person you can marry, what sort of people you can eat with, all sorts of important things. Would you say this means very little.

You say that it depends how people interpret these birth rights. Well, I'd say people interpret being a Royal pretty seriously!

Originally posted by spikegifted

The whole point about birthrights is that the fruits of previous generation(s) can be passed down to future generations.

Incorrect. Say for example someone's father is a hereditry peer in the House of Lords, and he is a really really bad politician. He dies, and what happens to the "fruits" of him being an awful Lord? Well, the son or daughter gets to step right into their fathers shoes. Dont get birthrights confused with inheritance. They are very different things. I'm not talking about inheritence.

I am against the concept of birthrights such as the ones the royals receive, as well as, for example, the concept of hereditry peerage in the house of lords. Why? Because people in those positions HAVE NOT EARNED THEIR POSITION, they have been given it on no account of their ability.

[spikegifted]

Ok, I recognize that you've distinguished between inheritence and birthright and you are saying that people need to earn their position in society (which I kind of agree, but I think royalty is something different).

To eliminate birthrights complete, you'd be looking some kind of a commune where all children are placed at birth. These children will of the collective attention of all their parents and have the collective financial resources of all their parents also. The children will have to work their way through the system to gain their positions. All this is fine. However, children develop different abilities at an early age, which also means the allocation of resources will be very different depending what are considered 'good abilities'. All, this will simply lead to another unfair system - would someone who's good with mathematics be allowed the same kind of resources as someone who's good at cross country running?

I don't disagree that someone has to work his/her way to positions in society. It is one of those positive social developments in the past couple of centries. However, I don't think we can eliminate birthright completely for it is part of the culture - wherever you look. In case of royalties, especially for the UK where it plays a significant constitutional part, birthright for them is a guarantee based on this country's constitutional makeup. It is not because they've earn it, it is because we need them there.

[DaBeeeenster]

I'm not talking about a commune. You are trying to inflect what I have said. It will not work.

I have nothing against inheritance. That's fine by me. What I have a problem with is people being automatically born into a position of power/status. The (hereditry) Lords and the Royal Family are two very good examples of this. There is no reasonable argument as to why this should happen, other than history and it being "the norm".

It is not because they've earn it, it is because we need them there.

What on earth do we need them there for? To provide an example to the nation on how not to conduct your marriage? Maybe to provide an example (as Philip does every few months) of how to be a racist? Maybe to provide an example of how you need about 8 homes, 3 castles and a load of corgi dogs? They serve no practical purpose whatsoever.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster


What on earth do we need them there for? To provide an example to the nation on how not to conduct your marriage?

DaBeeeenster, you consistently judge people because their marriages have fallen apart. You have some sort of biased view against the royals because they can't adhere to the out-dated religious view that marriage is ALWAYS till 'death us do part'. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Because of who the Royals are, you seem to think they are any less human than you or I and have a responsibility to stay in an unhappy relationship to 'set an example' to us peasants. Your view is fundamentally wrong and prejudice. You argue that the Royals are no different to the othe 60-odd million people in this country with regards to rights, but you then impose this rule on them, which does not apply to anyone else.

Sort your argument out, so that it is consistent with your views, rather than the 'one rule for them, another for us' argument when it suits you.

[KraniX]

i like how much tourism the royal family bring to the UK, but i don't like all the hangers on, people who are 751st in line to the crown for example.

lots of other countries have kings/queens and it doesn't seem to cause them any problems (denmark?).

maybe its just our royal family are a bunch of plebs...

[petrefax]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
DaBeeeenster, you consistently judge people because their marriages have fallen apart. You have some sort of biased view against the royals because they can't adhere to the out-dated religious view that marriage is ALWAYS till 'death us do part'. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Because of who the Royals are, you seem to think they are any less human than you or I and have a responsibility to stay in an unhappy relationship to 'set an example' to us peasants. Your view is fundamentally wrong and prejudice. You argue that the Royals are no different to the othe 60-odd million people in this country with regards to rights, but you then impose this rule on them, which does not apply to anyone else.

Sort your argument out, so that it is consistent with your views, rather than the 'one rule for them, another for us' argument when it suits you.

the fact that the reigning monarch is automatically the head of the church of england would signify that its not just a case of "they're only human too" - as the head of a religion which adheres to the biblical teachings that marriage is a holy sacrament & divorce is simply not an option would suggest to me that at the very least the queen is a supreme hypocrite

imho i couldn't care less who gets divorced, but as the head of a religion the queen (and by "birthright", her family to a lesser extent) are "one step away from the big fella himself, gods representative on earth" etc.

this is my main objection & the reason why i support dabeeensters argument. surely this would suggest that the royals have a specific role & obligation to the CoE congregation, and since this is the recognised religion of this nation, the nation itself - previous argumants have talked about their responsibilities & how they are worth the money they cost us due to the role they perform - in this instance they are blatanty failing us in this aspect of their role, and yes...in this instance they should be setting an example

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I'm not talking about a commune. You are trying to inflect what I have said. It will not work.

I have nothing against inheritance. That's fine by me. What I have a problem with is people being automatically born into a position of power/status. The (hereditry) Lords and the Royal Family are two very good examples of this. There is no reasonable argument as to why this should happen, other than history and it being "the norm".


What on earth do we need them there for? To provide an example to the nation on how not to conduct your marriage? Maybe to provide an example (as Philip does every few months) of how to be a racist? Maybe to provide an example of how you need about 8 homes, 3 castles and a load of corgi dogs? They serve no practical purpose whatsoever.

I love the way you brought up history. In fact, that is about the best reason why things are done this way in this country and not others. History is responsible for lots of things, whether you like it or not. For example, history has a significant influence in language, culture, constitution, etc. It is history that put you where you're today. It is history that makes this country what it is and give its people the attitude, mentality, outlook, etc. Don't underestimate history. To a large extent, history shapes the present and possible the future.

It is also history that provide this country with a constitutional monarchy. Otherwise we may be living in a republic like the Germans or Russians or we may be living in an absolute monarchy like the Nepalese...

Together with culture, history shapes what is considered the 'norm'. You can't get away from that. The very definiton of what is considered a 'norm' is based on historical precedents. Therefore, your argument of 'There is no reasonable argument as to why this should happen, other than history and it being "the norm"' is completely correct. Perhaps this country has been populated by a bunch of wessels who let their monarch woop their asses.

But that is clearly not the case. By and large, this country has a relatively successful few centuries of history. And this history wasn't created because this country was full of woop-asses. No! This country was successful because people (a good majority of them anyway) wanted good things to happen to them and they worked and fought for those good things. So if this country wasn't full of woop-asses, why did they keep their monarch?

My guess is because this country has been blessed with a succession of monarchs that were/are highly adaptive. I'm suggesting that there has been revolts and civil wars, they have been and bloody ones too. However, there's a mechanism within this country for the power-of-the-day to take on the criticisms, which in turn was/is fed back to the monarchy to change and evlov to adapt to the demand of the unhappy few. Hence over the years, there hasn't been a need to completely remove the monarchy.

It may be the case that you're not proud of living in a country where there is a living monarch. However, there're plenty of people in this country who are. I suppose if you're so unhappy with this country's constitution, you should consider one of the following two options:

1) Start a rebel group and arrange for something along the lines of 'Gun-power Plot Mk II'. Blow up the government, assassinate the monarch and replace it with a republic.

2) Get into politics and get yourself elected as prime minister and see if you can convince the rest of the country to rid itself of the monarch. Don't forget, if you're changing the constitution, you'd be out of a job also.

The choice is yours. However, I'm sure that you're going to find some hairline cracks in my arguments and you're going to give me another example of why you're not happy with living under a constitutional monarchy. That's fine by me... But other people may find it rather tiresome.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by petrefax
the fact that the reigning monarch is automatically the head of the church of england would signify that its not just a case of "they're only human too" - as the head of a religion which adheres to the biblical teachings that marriage is a holy sacrament & divorce is simply not an option would suggest to me that at the very least the queen is a supreme hypocrite

However, you do recognize that under Protestant interpretation of biblical teachings, it is entirely possible for married couple to divorce. Hence Henry VIII broke away from Catholic Rome and this country became Protestant.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by petrefax
the fact that the reigning monarch is automatically the head of the church of england would signify that its not just a case of "they're only human too" - as the head of a religion which adheres to the biblical teachings that marriage is a holy sacrament & divorce is simply not an option would suggest to me that at the very least the queen is a supreme hypocrite

imho i couldn't care less who gets divorced, but as the head of a religion the queen (and by "birthright", her family to a lesser extent) are "one step away from the big fella himself, gods representative on earth" etc.

this is my main objection & the reason why i support dabeeensters argument. surely this would suggest that the royals have a specific role & obligation to the CoE congregation, and since this is the recognised religion of this nation, the nation itself - previous argumants have talked about their responsibilities & how they are worth the money they cost us due to the role they perform - in this instance they are blatanty failing us in this aspect of their role, and yes...in this instance they should be setting an example

You are mixing up Church of England with other forms of christianity. Henry VIII invented CoE to make divorce legal. He renounced the other forms of christianity because he wanted to get his end away! So being heads of the CoE does not carry an obligation to stay in an unhappy marriage.


IMHO - religion is outdated today anyway!

edit - just read spikegifted post!

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
DaBeeeenster, you consistently judge people because their marriages have fallen apart. You have some sort of biased view against the royals because they can't adhere to the out-dated religious view that marriage is ALWAYS till 'death us do part'. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Because of who the Royals are, you seem to think they are any less human than you or I and have a responsibility to stay in an unhappy relationship to 'set an example' to us peasants. Your view is fundamentally wrong and prejudice. You argue that the Royals are no different to the othe 60-odd million people in this country with regards to rights, but you then impose this rule on them, which does not apply to anyone else.

Sort your argument out, so that it is consistent with your views, rather than the 'one rule for them, another for us' argument when it suits you.

I am not trying to judge them. It is not their fault that they were born into that position. However, if they accept the title that has bestowed them (and I think I am correct in saying that they have the option of not accepting) then I feel that they should make every effort to provide an example to the British public.

I am personally of the opinion that death of "marriage for life" has had a profound and unwanted effect on the country. Britain has the highest divorce rate in the world (http://fact.on.ca/newpaper/ti990615.htm) and I think that has, as an issue, been swept under the carpet. I dont want to pre-judge anyone that has gone through a divorce and I can understand that from time to time these things happen, but I feel that if the Royal family are to be accepting of their position with the social status of the country, they should make more of an effort and lead by example. Other than the Queens marriage to Prince racist, I mean Prince Philip, I cant think of a single royal couple that have not had a divorce. What sort of example does this set the country?

I know that they are only human, but as I said, if they are willing to accept the position that is being offered them, then they realise that they are going to have to make some sacrifices.

Personally I'd rather that they didn't have to make that decision, and the entire concept sold of to the Americans. Seriously.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by spikegifted
I love the way you brought up history
...
The choice is yours. However, I'm sure that you're going to find some hairline cracks in my arguments and you're going to give me another example of why you're not happy with living under a constitutional monarchy. That's fine by me... But other people may find it rather tiresome.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but your argument is basically "They have always been there"? Or am I missing something?

With regards to what you think I should do about it, well it really doesn't bother me THAT much. I mean, I get drunk at Christmas and laugh at the Queen, I laugh at Prince Philip whenever he says something deeply offensive to whatever minority is within earshot and I am bent over double laughing whenever I see Sarah Ferguson.

But at the end of the day, it really doesn't bother me as much as, say, the hereditry peers in the lords, who still actually hold onto a semblence of power within the country.

The royal family are, curiously in the same manner as the conservative party, stumbling into obscurity, and if they want to do so on as slow and painful a manner as possible then that's fine by me.