• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Let's discuss the British Monarchy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bfdd said:
I'd rather not spend any sort of fucking money for someone to live the lavish life style. I do not wish to pay for the hedonism of others, your dumbass has been indoctrinated since birth into being ok with it though so you get a slide. This is why I call you serfs.
Click to expand...

Thing is though it would be a legal nightmare to get rid of them.

If we stop paying them the only way that we would save money is to confiscate the land they own, which would be a bit iffy legally.
 
bfdd said:
I'd rather not spend any sort of fucking money for someone to live the lavish life style. I do not wish to pay for the hedonism of others, your dumbass has been indoctrinated since birth into being ok with it though so you get a slide. This is why I call you serfs.
Click to expand...

They cost the UK taxpayers tons of money. It's pretty ridiculous that the taxpayers have to support that inbred family and a discriminatory institution.

And, yes, they are serfs and/or peasants. It's quite troubling.
 
WelshBloke said:
Thing is though it would be a legal nightmare to get rid of them.

If we stop paying them the only way that we would save money is to confiscate the land they own, which would be a bit iffy legally.
Click to expand...

There are always legal mechanisms available to make it clear. It's only 'iffy legally' because the legal frameworks are used to support the monarchy.
 
HAL9000 said:
What all 3 of you? You had better get on with it. It'll take time to co-ordinate such a huge letter writing campaign.
Click to expand...

Well, there may only be a couple of people in the UK who are against discrimination, but there are a lot of people all over the rest of the world who are generally against discrimination.

Racism and discrimination may be an identifiable UK trait, but it isn't so in most of the world.
 
RabidMongoose said:
They cost the UK taxpayers tons of money. It's pretty ridiculous that the taxpayers have to support that inbred family and a discriminatory institution.

And, yes, they are serfs and/or peasants. It's quite troubling.
Click to expand...

67p

peasant doesn't mean what you think it means.

RabidMongoose said:
There are always legal mechanisms available to make it clear. It's only 'iffy legally' because the legal frameworks are used to support the monarchy.
Click to expand...

We want them there, why would we get rid of them? Where's the benefit to us or anyone else?
 
RabidMongoose said:
Well, there may only be a couple of people in the UK who are against discrimination, but there are a lot of people all over the rest of the world who are generally against discrimination.

Racism and discrimination may be an identifiable UK trait, but it isn't so in most of the world.
Click to expand...

There is no racism or discrimination in the royal family... What are you talking about you silly little man.
 
RabidMongoose said:
There are always legal mechanisms available to make it clear. It's only 'iffy legally' because the legal frameworks are used to support the monarchy.
Click to expand...

Yep. Take away their income, tax their land as any common serf would be taxes, and they would be unable to keep "their" land for very long.
 
HAL9000 said:
67p

peasant doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

67p is what they the royals tell you, but they actually cost more. It's sad that you actually fall for their tricks.

And people in the UK are generally peasants.

We want them there, why would we get rid of them? Where's the benefit to us or anyone else?
Click to expand...

To remove discrimination. That's a worthy goal in itself, but I suppose the UK doesn't view elimination of discrimination as a worthy goal.
 
RabidMongoose said:
67p is what they the royals tell you, but they actually cost more. It's sad that you actually fall for their tricks.

And people in the UK are generally peasants.
Click to expand...

Nope 67p is what it costs

There aren't as many agricultural workers in the UK as you think actually, it's relatively uncommon. Unless you think peasant means something else, which it doesn't.

To remove discrimination. That's a worthy goal in itself, but I suppose the UK doesn't view elimination of discrimination as a worthy goal.
Click to expand...

What discrimination? I think you're confused again.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Yep. Take away their income, tax their land as any common serf would be taxes, and they would be unable to keep "their" land for very long.
Click to expand...

No government has ever had an issue doing it to the "regular joes" out there, why should the "royals" be treated any differently?
 
HAL9000 said:
Nope 67p is what it costs

There aren't as many agricultural workers in the UK as you think actually, it's relatively uncommon. Unless you think peasant means something else, which it doesn't.



What discrimination? I think you're confused again.
Click to expand...

Good example of the peasant-complex.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Yep. Take away their income, tax their land as any common serf would be taxes, and they would be unable to keep "their" land for very long.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact that at the moment all income from the crown Estate is given to the government. The Crown Estate is property owned by members of the royal family not the state.

If we get rid of their official positions there's no reason why they would have to give that money to the government.
 
While interesting, discussing the UK monarchy between US citizens and UK subjects is kind of like discussing issues related to guns. We just don't speak the same language when it comes to these subjects, each side having lived under that system since birth.
 
bfdd said:
No government has ever had an issue doing it to the "regular joes" out there, why should the "royals" be treated any differently?
Click to expand...

The issue is how can you treat a living God like a normal person? The royals are above the peasants, so they must receive special treatment.

Lots of countries have removed monarchies. Even Nepal did it very recently. The UK is behind even Nepal when it comes to human rights, quite troubling.
 
davmat787 said:
While interesting, discussing the UK monarchy between US citizens and UK subjects is kind of like discussing issues related to guns. We just don't speak the same language when it comes to these subjects, each side having lived under that system since birth.
Click to expand...

Very true.

RabidMongoose said:
The issue is how can you treat a living God like a normal person? The royals are above the peasants, so they must receive special treatment.

Lots of countries have removed monarchies. Even Nepal did it very recently. The UK is behind even Nepal when it comes to human rights, quite troubling.
Click to expand...

Of course they are above commoners like you and I, they are royals, what do you not understand?
 
WelshBloke said:
I was referring to the fact that at the moment all income from the crown Estate is given to the government. The Crown Estate is property owned by members of the royal family not the state.

If we get rid of their official positions there's no reason why they would have to give that money to the government.
Click to expand...

That could be very easily resolved. The crown estate belongs to the monarchy as an institution, it is not the private property to be disposed of by the individual royal family members. It should be easy to implement new legal mechanisms to remove the necessary lands from royal ownership.
 
RabidMongoose said:
That could be very easily resolved. The crown estate belongs to the monarchy as an institution, it is not the private property to be disposed of by the individual royal family members. It should be easy to implement new legal mechanisms to remove the necessary lands from royal ownership.
Click to expand...

Nope, you'll find it is privately owned by different members of the royal family.
 
RabidMongoose said:
If you have succumbed to the peasant-complex, then you won't understand. It's like asking early humans why the sun is to be worshipped.
Click to expand...

Now I'm royally confused, are we talking about the monarchy or are we talking about agriculture?

Could you come back and post using English definitions instead of DIY ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top