The Royal Wedding

[CanOWorms]

It doesn't cost that much, as we've established, it's a symbol of unity, and royalty, of ancient rights that we stand behind, they are ambassadors for our country that do huge good to charity. The role of the true head of state is utilised as is needed the royal family are there because we as a democracy choose to keep them, the moment we don't they are gone. There are no downsides, they are less of a symbol for genocide than the american president is.

Whether somethings costs a lot is subjective. However, we can say that the inbred royal family likely costs over £100/year with many estimates ranging from £200-300 million. In addition, this year, they cost the British economy £10 billion!

It's not a symbol of unity. It's a symbol of unity among particular groups (especially white Anglicans), but the Queen herself is a source of tension among Catholics, Irish, Quebecois (in Canada), and other groups.

They can be aiding charities without government-sanctioned godliness. However, most of them are losers, party animals, and inbred-inflicted crazies who do not contribute much to charity.

You can be a democracy, but not modern. That is what the UK is. It is a barbaric society where the majority can decide to "peasantize" the minority, much like how the US or UK were democracies even though they enslaved a portion of their populations.

There seems to be a lot of downsides!

 

[HAL9000]

Whether somethings costs a lot is subjective. However, we can say that the inbred royal family likely costs over £100/year with many estimates ranging from £200-300 million. In addition, this year, they cost the British economy £10 billion!

How much did we make this year.

As we've established if it were 400m per year then we'd be spend £7pp no £100. £7 isn't a lot by any English persons standards (with exception of homeless people, who don't pay tax anyway)

It's not a symbol of unity. It's a symbol of unity among particular groups (especially white Anglicans), but the Queen herself is a source of tension among Catholics, Irish, Quebecois (in Canada), and other groups.

It's called the church of England, it's a part of our country, we aren't a churchless country, if you don't like that you're in the wrong country, the church doesn't get special privileges over other churches, but it is our national religion.

They can be aiding charities without government-sanctioned godliness. However, most of them are losers, party animals, and inbred-inflicted crazies who do not contribute much to charity.

Source?

You can be a democracy, but not modern. That is what the UK is. It is a barbaric society where the majority can decide to "peasantize" the minority, much like how the US or UK were democracies even though they enslaved a portion of their populations.

We don't want to be modern, we're ancient, we have traditions, we have all the modern laws and rules we need, mixed with ancient traditions that help to give ourselves culture. No parts of the UK are enslaved. So I don't know what you mean by that, unless you are talking ancient history

There seems to be a lot of downsides!

Where?

Seriously? You're making up definitions, then expanding on that by making up words that relate to your made up definitions?

 

[RabidMongoose]

The head of state does have to be the head of church in the UK, it's called the church of England, you're the head of England, you're the head of the church.

There's no reason why the head of state must be the head of the church of england. To have this requirement is clearly religious discrimination.

No it's not, the church of England is part of England, it doesn't mean that other religions have less rights.



We don't have that, and neither do you.

"In God we trust"

First, "In God we trust" is just a motto and does not discriminate among religions. Second, that's nothing compared to your country forcing this religious fairy tale crap down the throats of the people and forcing governmental positions to be of one specific religion.

OK?

Actually it is the way most western societies work.

No, it's the way sexism works. Modern thought today does not recognize a divine right in one family to rule over the people, let alone that power is more appropriate in men than in women.

Your Monarchy is simply a discriminatory practice. And your only defense of such discrimination is basically that it's just the way it is. Well, it doesn't have to be. Abandon your outdated barbaric traditions. Treat religious minorities and women as equals. It's not that difficult, even if you're a neckbeard overweight male with a lot of angst towards women.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Whether somethings costs a lot is subjective. However, we can say that the inbred royal family likely costs over £100/year with many estimates ranging from £200-300 million. In addition, this year, they cost the British economy £10 billion!

It's not a symbol of unity. It's a symbol of unity among particular groups (especially white Anglicans), but the Queen herself is a source of tension among Catholics, Irish, Quebecois (in Canada), and other groups.

They can be aiding charities without government-sanctioned godliness. However, most of them are losers, party animals, and inbred-inflicted crazies who do not contribute much to charity.

You can be a democracy, but not modern. That is what the UK is. It is a barbaric society where the majority can decide to "peasantize" the minority, much like how the US or UK were democracies even though they enslaved a portion of their populations.

There seems to be a lot of downsides!

It's easy for the British majority to discriminate and hate the minority. For them, that's perfectly acceptable. It's part of their history, really. What would the UK be like if it weren't oppressing someone? It probably wouldn't even exist.

You call some of the British royals are insane or whatever. Sure, dressing up like a Nazi is pretty messed up, but in British society, no royal can ever commit a wrong. To them, idolizing a Nazi if you're a royal is perfectly normal.

Look at the reaction from this one person. "It's just the way it is...it's just the way the world works." He is a person who craves his government's discrimination and cannot even fathom a life that is truly free and equal.

 

[HAL9000]

There's no reason why the head of state must be the head of the church of england. To have this requirement is clearly religious discrimination.

It is a pre-requisite, the head of state started the church then appointed himself head of it, therefore the head of state is the head of the church.

First, "In God we trust" is just a motto and does not discriminate among religions. Second, that's nothing compared to your country forcing this religious fairy tale crap down the throats of the people and forcing governmental positions to be of one specific religion.

There's nothing like that over here either, I don't have to stand under a flag at school saying "One nation, under God"... or anything retarded like that.

The government here has nothing to do with the church, the monarchy does.

No, it's the way sexism works. Modern thought today does not recognize a divine right in one family to rule over the people, let alone that power is more appropriate in men than in women.

Yes it does, just not in your country, modern thought does think that, just not yours.

Your Monarchy is simply a discriminatory practice. And your only defense of such discrimination is basically that it's just the way it is. Well, it doesn't have to be. Abandon your outdated barbaric traditions. Treat religious minorities and women as equals. It's not that difficult, even if you're a neckbeard overweight male with a lot of angst towards women.

There's nothing barbaric about having a royal family. We treat religions minorities and woman as equals, more than you do if anything. How many female heads of states have you guys had?

I'm not overweight.

 

[CanOWorms]

How much did we make this year.

As we've established if it were 400m per year then we'd be spend £7pp no £100. £7 isn't a lot by any English persons standards (with exception of homeless people, who don't pay tax anyway)

£7/person is a lot in the aggregate. All government spending can be styled in this way, but it doesn't actually make it cheap.

Why does this one particular family have the ability to extract money from everyone in the UK? Can another family request everyone contribute £1 each? It's only £1.

It's called the church of England, it's a part of our country, we aren't a churchless country, if you don't like that you're in the wrong country, the church doesn't get special privileges over other churches, but it is our national religion.

Of course he church gets special privileges over other churches. The head of state is restricted to members of the Church of England. It's disgusting. No modern society restricts the head of state or other powerful political positions to particular religious or ethnic requirements.

Source?

Let's see. We have crazy Charles, Nazi Harry, Beatrice.

Do you have sources that they do "huge good" to charity? It seems to me that the easiest and biggest charity they can do would be to abdicate from their positions so that the government may reallocate the funds for their luxurious lifestyles to the poor.

We don't want to be modern, we're ancient, we have traditions, we have all the modern laws and rules we need, mixed with ancient traditions that help to give ourselves culture. No parts of the UK are enslaved. So I don't know what you mean by that, unless you are talking ancient history

Many in the UK want to be modern and not to be deemed peasants. It's insulting and disgusting. The majority should not be able to inflict such a status upon the minority.

Many ancient traditions are barbaric and incompatible with today's world: sati, seppuku, cannibalism, and monarchy.

Where?

In the UK.

Seriously? You're making up definitions, then expanding on that by making up words that relate to your made up definitions?

I don't feel constrained by the Queen.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's easy for the British majority to discriminate and hate the minority. For them, that's perfectly acceptable. It's part of their history, really. What would the UK be like if it weren't oppressing someone? It probably wouldn't even exist.

You call some of the British royals are insane or whatever. Sure, dressing up like a Nazi is pretty messed up, but in British society, no royal can ever commit a wrong. To them, idolizing a Nazi if you're a royal is perfectly normal.

Look at the reaction from this one person. "It's just the way it is...it's just the way the world works." He is a person who craves his government's discrimination and cannot even fathom a life that is truly free and equal.

It's actually really scary. Sometimes I think that someone in the international community just needs to intervene and depose the Queen herself as a last resort.

 

[HAL9000]

£7/person is a lot in the aggregate. All government spending can be styled in this way, but it doesn't actually make it cheap.

Why does this one particular family have the ability to extract money from everyone in the UK? Can another family request everyone contribute £1 each? It's only £1.

Because they are born with the overwhelming responsibility to be heads of state. £7 is bloody cheap compared to how much we make from them

Of course he church gets special privileges over other churches. The head of state is restricted to members of the Church of England. It's disgusting. No modern society restricts the head of state or other powerful political positions to particular religious or ethnic requirements.

What special privileges?

No modern society? really? So your "modern" society doesn't require a christian to be elected?

Let's see. We have crazy Charles, Nazi Harry, Beatrice.

Charles is head of numerous charities, Harry is not crazy, and is also a major part of assorted charities, while being in Iraq. Beatrice is a nut bag, no arguments there.

Do you have sources that they do "huge good" to charity? It seems to me that the easiest and biggest charity they can do would be to abdicate from their positions so that the government may reallocate the funds for their luxurious lifestyles to the poor.

Anne is probably the best at bringing money, she's president of save the children foundation, which on it's own brings in hundreds of millions. Google her.

Many in the UK want to be modern and not to be deemed peasants. It's insulting and disgusting. The majority should not be able to inflict such a status upon the minority.

No one here is deemed an agricultural worker without actually being one.

Many ancient traditions are barbaric and incompatible with today's world: sati, seppuku, cannibalism, and monarchy.

You're equating cannibalism to monarchy? 🙄

I don't feel constrained by Language.

Fixed.

Seriously what gives you the right to redefine words as you see fit and expect me to understand them without explaining your updated definitions of them? I have literally no idea what you are referring to when you use the word peasant, a peasant is by definition someone who works in agriculture, I don't, I don't understand the relevance of the word in this thread. Care to explain?

You're country is not better than mine, we may have some outdated traditions, but as a nation we are far more moral, far more logical, and living in a happier, safer, more healthy society that you

 

[RabidMongoose]

It is a pre-requisite, the head of state started the church then appointed himself head of it, therefore the head of state is the head of the church.

However, it doesn't need to be that way. Traditions change. And discriminatory traditions should definitely change.

There is absolutely no reason why the head of state of a modern nation should also have to be the head of a particular religion.

There's nothing like that over here either, I don't have to stand under a flag at school saying "One nation, under God"... or anything retarded like that.

The government here has nothing to do with the church, the monarchy does.

Uh, your Monarch is the head of state. And is supported by the government. As such, your government has a lot to do with the Church. Moreover, other officials within your government must be members of the Church.

Stop lying.

There's nothing barbaric about having a royal family. We treat religions minorities and woman as equals, more than you do if anything. How many female heads of states have you guys had?

No, you don't treat religious minorities and women as equals if you do not allow them to become the head of state or prefer men over women.

How many minority head of states have you guys had? None. In fact, you can't even have a freaking Catholic as your head of state!

However, in the US and many other countries, anyone born there could at least at some point be the head of state. In the UK, it isn't like that. And your only defense to such mandated discriminatory practice is that it's tradition.

In the end, your monarchy is discriminatory. You recognize it, but you're actually fine with it. Not surprising given the nature of the British people.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's actually really scary. Sometimes I think that someone in the international community just needs to intervene and depose the Queen herself as a last resort.

LOL - can you imagine how the peasants would react once their Overlord is removed? Hell, I'm just wondering how they're going to react once they have to bow down to King Charles. That's going to be hilarious.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Of course he church gets special privileges over other churches. The head of state is restricted to members of the Church of England. It's disgusting. No modern society restricts the head of state or other powerful political positions to particular religious or ethnic requirements.

But it's normal in UK society to restrict powerful political positions to specific religious groups. You see, apparently discrimination in the UK is perfectly fine and normal.

I'm pretty sure that we have a lot of members of the BNP here.

 

[HAL9000]

However, it doesn't need to be that way. Traditions change. And discriminatory traditions should definitely change.

There is absolutely no reason why the head of state of a modern nation should also have to be the head of a particular religion.

A head of state being head of the national church isn't being discriminatory.

Uh, your Monarch is the head of state. And is supported by the government. As such, your government has a lot to do with the Church. Moreover, other officials within your government must be members of the Church.

Not so, the other heads of the church are not people in government positions unless they have earned and appointed those church

No, you don't treat religious minorities and women as equals if you do not allow them to become the head of state or prefer men over women.

We allow only the royal family to become heads of state, and the family name is passed down through males, as with any other family in the country.

How many minority head of states have you guys had? None. In fact, you can't even have a freaking Catholic as your head of state!

We've had catholic heads of state (google it) You seem to argue that either we appoint heads of state or that they have a choice in the matter, neither is true, we aren't choosing one religion over another, we aren't saying minorities can't be heads of state, we are saying one family can be a head of state, and that family happens to also be the head of a specific religion.

However, in the US and many other countries, anyone born there could at least at some point be the head of state. In the UK, it isn't like that. And your only defense to such mandated discriminatory practice is that it's tradition.

My only defence is that we do things differently from you, just like some people are born into money and wealth some people (bush's/ clinton's/ kennedy's etc) are born into politics, if they don't like that they are free to abstain, as they have done in the past, the people who are true heads of our government are freely elected, just like yours, the people who are just figure heads are not

In the end, your monarchy is discriminatory. You recognize it, but you're actually fine with it. Not surprising given the nature of the British people.

It's not discriminatory, as they aren't choosing one thing over another, they aren't making any choice at all.

 

[RabidMongoose]

A head of state being head of the national church isn't being discriminatory.

Yes it is. It's discriminatory against people of other religions. However, I guess you don't consider them to even be people. Or maybe they're of a caste below yours?

Not so, the other heads of the church are not people in government positions unless they have earned and appointed those church

Uh, no, stop lying. The Church has other members appointed into the government.

We allow only the royal family to become heads of state, and the family name is passed down through males, as with any other family in the country.

And you make sure that no religious minority can ever become the head of state. It's not just that one royal family.

It's sexist, too. Plain and simple.

We've had catholic heads of state (google it) You seem to argue that either we appoint heads of state or that they have a choice in the matter, neither is true, we aren't choosing one religion over another, we aren't saying minorities can't be heads of state, we are saying one family can be a head of state, and that family happens to also be the head of a specific religion.

You can't have a Catholic right now as your head of state.

My only defence is that we do things differently from you, just like some people are born into money and wealth some people (bush's/ clinton's/ kennedy's etc) are born into politics, if they don't like that they are free to abstain, as they have done in the past, the people who are true heads of our government are freely elected, just like yours, the people who are just figure heads are not

Uh, genius, Clinton was not born into wealth.

And, yes, your defense is that you do things differently because you are pro-discrimination and I am for equality. Your only defense is that hate and discrimination against women and religious minorities (and thus by proxy many racial minorities) is normal where you live. Well, I would agree with that..the UK is a very hateful place.

It's not discriminatory, as they aren't choosing one thing over another, they aren't making any choice at all.

Yeah, they have no choice whatsoever. Typical racist and discriminatory speech.

Anyways, nice 'defense.' "Hey! Racism and discrimination and hatred of women are normal in the UK! It's the way things get done!"

In the end, we're just going to differ on whether discrimination, racism, and such are wrong or right. You're fine with it since you're likely a member of the BNP. I'm not.

 

[HAL9000]

Yes it is. It's discriminatory against people of other religions. However, I guess you don't consider them to even be people. Or maybe they're of a caste below yours?




Uh, no, stop lying. The Church has other members appointed into the government.



And you make sure that no religious minority can ever become the head of state. It's not just that one royal family.

It's sexist, too. Plain and simple.



You can't have a Catholic right now as your head of state.



Uh, genius, Clinton was not born into wealth.

And, yes, your defense is that you do things differently because you are pro-discrimination and I am for equality. Your only defense is that hate and discrimination against women and religious minorities (and thus by proxy many racial minorities) is normal where you live. Well, I would agree with that..the UK is a very hateful place.




Yeah, they have no choice whatsoever. Typical racist and discriminatory speech.

Anyways, nice 'defense.' "Hey! Racism and discrimination and hatred of women are normal in the UK! It's the way things get done!"

Gah I give up, arguing with a xenophobe is like arguing with a creationist. Pointless, if you can't understand that some people are born into different situations or responsibilities than others and that you can't discriminate against someone without a choice then I can't help you.

Let me put it this way, we are discriminating when it comes to that one family, they can't be born black, they can't be born muslim, they can be born a male or a female. To them, it's tough that's how they can be born. Outside of that one family there aren't any of those problems institutionalised. The country makes money out of them so we keep them.

/Discussion.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Gah I give up, arguing with a xenophobe is like arguing with a creationist. Pointless, if you can't understand that some people are born into different situations or responsibilities than others and that you can't discriminate against someone without a choice then I can't help you.

I agree. This is pointless. You're a racist and support a caste system. I don't believe in this sort of caste nonsense. Nobody should be born into specific governmental responsibilities. They should all ideally be earned or at the very least they should be attainable to everyone.

Let me put it this way, we are discriminating when it comes to that one family, they can't be born black, they can't be born muslim, they can be born a male or a female. To them, it's tough that's how they can be born. Outside of that one family there aren't any of those problems institutionalised. The country makes money out of them so we keep them.

/Discussion.

Disgusting, but at least you admit to your racism and religious discrimination.

 

[HAL9000]

I agree. This is pointless. You're a racist and support a caste system. I don't believe in this sort of caste nonsense. Nobody should be born into specific governmental responsibilities. They should all ideally be earned or at the very least they should be attainable to everyone.

And people shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to delusion. But they do.

Disgusting, but at least you admit to your racism and religious discrimination.

I'm admitting it is a fact that the Royal family are born white, and CofE.

The same as my children with my fiancee will be born white and whatever religion they fancy.

Above are facts.

 

[RabidMongoose]

And people shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to delusion. But they do.

The difference is that I actually think that they shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to a fairly tale. I don't defend it, unlike you defending a caste system, racism, and religious discrimination.

I'm admitting it is a fact that the Royal family are born white, and CofE.

The same as my children with my fiancee will be born white and whatever religion they fancy.

Above are facts.

It is also a fact that you're a racist.

 

[dainthomas]

People who are fine with donating, such as yourself, can do it, but those who wish to join the modern world don't have to be forced to prostate themselves to inbreds.

I'd let Kate Middleton prostate me any day of the week.

 

[CanOWorms]

Gah I give up, arguing with a xenophobe is like arguing with a creationist. Pointless, if you can't understand that some people are born into different situations or responsibilities than others and that you can't discriminate against someone without a choice then I can't help you.

People are born into different situations, but not responsibilities.

Let me put it this way, we are discriminating when it comes to that one family, they can't be born black, they can't be born muslim, they can be born a male or a female. To them, it's tough that's how they can be born. Outside of that one family there aren't any of those problems institutionalised. The country makes money out of them so we keep them.

/Discussion.

Being a royal is not an immutable characteristic. You cannot compare it with being black, being a woman, etc.

The UK deserves a modern government. It deserves the abolishment of the monarchy.

 

[HAL9000]

The difference is that I actually think that they shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to a fairly tale. I don't defend it, unlike you defending a caste system, racism, and religious discrimination.

Alas, you do have to pledge allegiance to a fairy tale in America. Sorry.
Class system, not caste in this case. Your country does a lot more to religiously discriminate against heads of government than mine 😉

It is also a fact that you're a racist.

To whom am I racially offensive to? Answer: No one.

 

[HAL9000]

People are born into different situations, but not responsibilities.

True.

Being a royal is not an immutable characteristic. You cannot compare it with being black, being a woman, etc.

The UK deserves a modern government. It deserves the abolishment of the monarchy.

We have a modern government, why should we abolish something that makes us money? We have no problem with them, we have what we deserve, if we deserved something different we'd take it.

 

[CanOWorms]

It is also a fact that you're a racist.

I don't know if he's a racist, but white supremacy is probably a big factor for many monarchists. They would probably be crying for its abolishment if a black man was named King.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Alas, you do have to pledge allegiance to a fairy tale in America. Sorry.
Class system, not caste in this case. Your country does a lot more to religiously discriminate against heads of government than mine 😉

In the US, some states must have their students pledge allegiance to a fairy tale. I think that's wrong, even if it's within tradition.

It's a racist caste system. Moreover, some citizens and other governmental officers must pledge allegiance to a fairy tale in your country since they must pledge allegiance to the head of a fairy tale church.

To whom am I racially offensive to? Answer: No one.

You already mentioned black people. And Muslims. Basically, anyone who isn't a white Anglican. You're on record with this now.

 

[CanOWorms]

We have a modern government, why should we abolish something that makes us money? We have no problem with them, we have what we deserve, if we deserved something different we'd take it.

Monarchy in any form is in no way a modern government.

People abolish many things even if they may make money (though I object to claiming that the royal family generates money for the UK). You can probably enslave people and sell them off to foreign countries and make money off of that, but it's not done because it's barbaric.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't know if he's a racist, but white supremacy is probably a big factor for many monarchists. They would probably be crying for its abolishment if a black man was named King.

Yup. Or if someone of Paksitani descent was in line to be the next King, the masses would probably riot. As long as a white Anglican is at the head, the racists will be happy.