Let's discuss the British Monarchy

[WelshBloke]

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.

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

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.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

67p

peasant doesn't mean what you think it means.

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.

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

 

[HAL9000]

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.

There is no racism or discrimination in the royal family... What are you talking about you silly little man.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

67p

peasant doesn't mean what you think it means.

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?

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]

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.

Yep, but the serfs/peasants are easily controlled by the royals. It's a caste-like structure that allows for easy manipulation.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

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.

What discrimination? I think you're confused again.

 

[bfdd]

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.

No government has ever had an issue doing it to the "regular joes" out there, why should the "royals" be treated any differently?

 

[HAL9000]

No government has ever had an issue doing it to the "regular joes" out there, why should the "royals" be treated any differently?

Because they are different, they aren't commoners like you and me.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

Good example of the peasant-complex.

 

[WelshBloke]

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.

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.

 

[HAL9000]

Good example of the peasant-complex.

What? You mean using the English language, sticking to definitions not redefining them myself is the sort of thing that an agricultural worker would do?

 

[davmat787]

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

No government has ever had an issue doing it to the "regular joes" out there, why should the "royals" be treated any differently?

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.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

Very true.

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.

Of course they are above commoners like you and I, they are royals, what do you not understand?

 

[davmat787]

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.

They could always go back to the good ole days of colonialism if they ever need the cash. You know, the old White Man's Burden.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

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]

Very true.



Of course they are above commoners like you and I, they are royals, what do you not understand?

Very good peasant-complex example again.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

Nope, you'll find it is privately owned by different members of the royal family.

 

[HAL9000]

Very good peasant-complex example again.

Why? You and I are commoners that's just a statement of fact, it has nothing to do with agriculture...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Why? You and I are commoners that's just a statement of fact, it has nothing to do with agriculture...

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.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

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.