D
Deleted member 21219
Guest
One of the characteristics of the Internet is that it allows one to appreciate at great length the capacity for some people to keep their mouths shut. Jim Taylor
Against my better judge and my promise:
1) The operative word is “essentially”.
2) Thus what is their (royalty) purpose?
3) Don’t you find it quite illogical to bestow such (privileges) to a few people who have “ essentially “ no power?
4) Don‘t they cost? A lot?
5) What have They done to be granted such honors and such privileges? Born from some “special” people?
I could ask many more questions but if their subjects think of this arrangement/device and its hereditary granting as a suitable and reasonable form of function ...
Well inheritance isn't fair is it?I object to the Royal Family because of their privilege. It is wrong and anachronistic in these days of supposed meritocracy and equal opportunities that one group of people - the royals - have such privilege. Yes, I know it comes with duties but that doesn't make it right.
How did the Royals get their wealth and privilege? Their ancestors directly or indirectly killed for, and stole it. It may be difficult to remove their wealth but we can remove their privileges. Would it be expedient for the UK to do that. It's a good question that should be debated (as should the place of religion in state matters when we are supposed to be a secular state).
Mention was made of a free press (and by extension, the media). The BBC, our state broadcaster for whom I have a lot of admiration, chose on Friday to offer wall to wall TV coverage of the death of Prince Phillip on some of its channels, and suspend the programmes on the one it claims to provide an alternative view, BBC Four. Perhaps Sky Arts channel would be more sensible? No, the programme I wanted to watch was replaced by one about Prince Phillip. Surely Sky Sports News would be free from this? Unbelievably no! Prince Phillip was here too. A look at the main papers on Saturday morning showed all had a full page picture of the good prince, plus supplements on the subject (of course these had been in preparation for months as concerns for the prince's health appeared). Only the Financial Times had a third of a page sized picture and the rest was devoted to financial news.
This is not an attack on the prince as a person. There was somewhere a nice picture of him and his wife which reminded us that he was also a family person like the rest of us.
I object to the Royal Family because of their privilege. It is wrong and anachronistic in these days of supposed meritocracy and equal opportunities that one group of people - the royals - have such privilege. Yes, I know it comes with duties but that doesn't make it right.
How did the Royals get their wealth and privilege? Their ancestors directly or indirectly killed for, and stole it. It may be difficult to remove their wealth but we can remove their privileges. Would it be expedient for the UK to do that. It's a good question that should be debated (as should the place of religion in state matters when we are supposed to be a secular state).
Mention was made of a free press (and by extension, the media). The BBC, our state broadcaster for whom I have a lot of admiration, chose on Friday to offer wall to wall TV coverage of the death of Prince Phillip on some of its channels, and suspend the programmes on the one it claims to provide an alternative view, BBC Four. Perhaps Sky Arts channel would be more sensible? No, the programme I wanted to watch was replaced by one about Prince Phillip. Surely Sky Sports News would be free from this? Unbelievably no! Prince Phillip was here too. A look at the main papers on Saturday morning showed all had a full page picture of the good prince, plus supplements on the subject (of course these had been in preparation for months as concerns for the prince's health appeared). Only the Financial Times had a third of a page sized picture and the rest was devoted to financial news.
This is not an attack on the prince as a person. There was somewhere a nice picture of him and his wife which reminded us that he was also a family person like the rest of us.
I don't see the privilege of royalty any differently than any other inheritance, and the origins of great wealth is almost always the result of exploitation of one sort or another.
I believe you will find that the BBC is obliged (by its charter, the legal instrument by which it exists) to behave in this way on the demise of certain key public figures.The BBC, our state broadcaster for whom I have a lot of admiration, chose on Friday to offer wall to wall TV coverage of the death of Prince Phillip on some of its channels, and suspend the programmes on the one it claims to provide an alternative view
That’s a strange reaction, I can understand if you don’t feel like gushing about him, but the future of the human race is hardly going to be based on revelling in the suffering of others and precisely how much personal credit do you think you should receive for not being born a British aristocrat?To hell with those royal maggots who concocted Iran's 1979 revolution in guadeloupe conference and ruined the life of a nation. Now we have to feel pity for this hundred years old turtle pass away? Not a chance!
Interesting thread topic for this site...has the late Duke been a big fan of “objective measurements” in HiFi kit? Does he have a position on Class D v Class A/B amps? Just curious.
It’s written, but not codified.What? nobody bothered to write down the Constitution??
Interesting thread topic for this site...has the late Duke been a big fan of “objective measurements” in HiFi kit? Does he have a position on Class D v Class A/B amps? Just curious.
no one has said it yet, so i'm just gonna put it out there. old school racist. the media calls it his "gaffes", his "sense of humor". a man's man?
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother f- him and John Wayne
I do recall the group you are citing taking a jolly long time to expel a key member for rabid anti semitism and affiliating with the Nation of Islam which is documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center of being a black supremacist hate group. Just sayin’.
The point was, Great Britain is a second class power and the population likes to remember the ‘old times’ of when they rules the waves. The Royal family, with all that pomp and circumstance helps put people in that frame of mind.
Well inheritance isn't fair is it?
If you feel this way perhaps the way to go is 100% tax on death, on the basis you had more money, property, titles or whatever than you needed so now, on your death, everything you haven't used could go to the common good of the community since your children have done nothing to deserve any of it.
I don't see the privilege of royalty any differently than any other inheritance, and the origins of great wealth is almost always the result of exploitation of one sort or another.
The poster was quoting Public Enemy ‘Don’t being the hype’. A good tune released in the late 80’s. I could get into their previous album and its position on women but I won’t. I could point out that there’s a certain section of society to whom good moral conduct means paying attention to the perceived flaws of others whilst ignoring the only bit that they can influence which is within the 1m sq on which they stand.OP must have been edited. What group was cited?
You neatly miss the point. There is property (wealth) and I have agreed that taking it would be morally difficult.
Privilege of royalty on the other hand, is something else. Surely you can see that? Royalty is not something anyone can aspire to (unless you try to marry it perhaps). It arose in the distant past, as I said before, through brute force and is still embedded in our political system for no other reason then it was there before. Why should certain individuals have these privileges?
You neatly miss the point. There is property (wealth) and I have agreed that taking it would be morally difficult.
Privilege of royalty on the other hand, is something else. Surely you can see that? Royalty is not something anyone can aspire to (unless you try to marry it perhaps). It arose in the distant past, as I said before, through brute force and is still embedded in our political system for no other reason then it was there before. Why should certain individuals have these privileges?
I believe you will find that the BBC is obliged (by its charter, the legal instrument by which it exists) to behave in this way on the demise of certain key public figures.