20/20 special on the Royal Family.

[dennilfloss]

Tonight at 8.

Rarely seen moments that were filmed all during the last year with unprecedented access. Should be most enjoyable.

God Save The Queen and her heirs!:thumbsup:

 

[lyssword]

queen? prince? yawn..

 

[Safeway]

Are they going to talk about Harry in Afghan?

 

[Capt Caveman]

I'll pass. Terminator is on anyways.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Safeway
Are they going to talk about Harry in Afghan?

No, they are going to talk about Harry wearing an afghan.

 

[BillGates]

I don't know why anybody in the U.S. (or anywhere in the world for that matter) gives a crap about those people.

 

[destrekor]

why don't the British just ditch tradition already? The parliament truly runs the government, the queen/king thing as it today is just holding to tradition. How much do they actually do these days? I've read that they basically don't do anything but look pretty and get paid, and occasionally make 'decisions', which are just verdicts that agree with what parliament laid out in the first place.

 

[TallBill]

Who cares? They don't have any power and should be disbanded.

 

[Platypus]

puppet show

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Safeway
Are they going to talk about Harry in Afghan?

No, they are going to talk about Harry wearing an afghan.

Interesting. I want to watch it now.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I think they still have plenty of power and influence.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: destrekor
why don't the British just ditch tradition already? The parliament truly runs the government, the queen/king thing as it today is just holding to tradition. How much do they actually do these days? I've read that they basically don't do anything but look pretty and get paid, and occasionally make 'decisions', which are just verdicts that agree with what parliament laid out in the first place.

That's a LOT of history that you'll be abandoning.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: destrekor
why don't the British just ditch tradition already? The parliament truly runs the government, the queen/king thing as it today is just holding to tradition. How much do they actually do these days? I've read that they basically don't do anything but look pretty and get paid, and occasionally make 'decisions', which are just verdicts that agree with what parliament laid out in the first place.

That's a LOT of history that you'll be abandoning.

And a very unhappy family with lots of money.

 

[Vic]

I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

http://www.monarchist.ca/new/arguments.html

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

http://www.monarchist.ca/new/arguments.html

Nationalism?

 

[rasczak]

Originally posted by: destrekor
why don't the British just ditch tradition already? The parliament truly runs the government, the queen/king thing as it today is just holding to tradition. How much do they actually do these days? I've read that they basically don't do anything but look pretty and get paid, and occasionally make 'decisions', which are just verdicts that agree with what parliament laid out in the first place.

noone here cares much about them, but in england they are revered regardless of their political power.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

Yeah really. That'd never happen in the US. I mean, it'd be like George W Bush taking office immediately following his father. We all know Bill Clinton preceded George W. Of course if Hillary Clinton became president, well that would be pure coincidence...

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: rasczak

Originally posted by: destrekor
why don't the British just ditch tradition already? The parliament truly runs the government, the queen/king thing as it today is just holding to tradition. How much do they actually do these days? I've read that they basically don't do anything but look pretty and get paid, and occasionally make 'decisions', which are just verdicts that agree with what parliament laid out in the first place.

noone here cares much about them, but in england they are revered regardless of their political power.

So then why the hell are they constantly being shoved in our faces here? Every time I see some stupid story on the news about the royals I want so shove the teleprompter-reading pinheads face into an American History text.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

Yeah really. That'd never happen in the US. I mean, it'd be like George W Bush taking office immediately following his father. We all know Bill Clinton preceded George W. Of course if Hillary Clinton became president, well that would be pure conicidence...

This is one of the reasons why I'm supporting Obama.

That analogy still doesn't quite work though. Elizabeth II has been queen since 1952. 56 years.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

Yeah really. That'd never happen in the US. I mean, it'd be like George W Bush taking office immediately following his father. We all know Bill Clinton preceded George W. Of course if Hillary Clinton became president, well that would be pure coincidence...

The difference that you so cleverly ignore is that we elected those people into office, they are not there by some oddball theory of "devine right".

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

Yeah really. That'd never happen in the US. I mean, it'd be like George W Bush taking office immediately following his father. We all know Bill Clinton preceded George W. Of course if Hillary Clinton became president, well that would be pure coincidence...

The difference that you so cleverly ignore is that we elected those people into office, they are not there by some oddball theory of "devine right".

Right, we elected him. In the 2000 election Al Gore won the popular vote, yet Bush won anyway (via electoral vote). Had Bush not been voted president again in 2004, John Kerry would have. Surely those two aren't related...

Whether by "divine right" or not, there is a "hereditary" Monarchy here.

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I'll pass. Terminator is on anyways.

good gawd that chickanator is hawt! :Q

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Vic
I cannot for the life of me understand how any country can still support a hereditary monarchy in this modern day and age and yet consider themselves to be liberal and progressive.

Yeah really. That'd never happen in the US. I mean, it'd be like George W Bush taking office immediately following his father. We all know Bill Clinton preceded George W. Of course if Hillary Clinton became president, well that would be pure coincidence...

The difference that you so cleverly ignore is that we elected those people into office, they are not there by some oddball theory of "devine right".

Right, we elected him. In the 2000 election Al Gore won the popular vote, yet Bush won anyway (via electoral vote). Had Bush not been voted president again in 2004, John Kerry would have. Surely those two aren't related...

Whether by "divine right" or not, there is a "hereditary" Monarchy here.

:roll: Go back enough generations and we are all related. There is no monarchy in the United States hereditary or otherwise.

 

[CorCentral]

Is'nt Click on tonight? One of the HD or movie channels??
Or was that yesterday?