buttmuncher.ops Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 i wonder if i can get a job squeezing out toothpaste for her Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I don't really have the British royals on my mind ever, but I think part of what keeps us fascinated with us is that they're the only thriving family from back in the good old days of {almost} total monarchy. Pretty sure there's other royal families in Europe. Anyway. . .congratulations to the new parents! I'll leave any and all analysis of the child's future to the British, who have a far better handle on this than I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Laufeyson Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Pretty sure there's other royal families in Europe. Sure are. The Swedish royal family is among my favorites. And then...theres the Danish Royal family. Man, that portrait is just the best thing. I bet they are really fun at parties. (that url is not the Dutch royal family, trust me) Edited May 4, 2015 by Loki Laufeyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Danish Royal family is the shit! Some of my friends might not be alive right now if Christian X didn't do what he did for the Jews during WWII. Incidentally, the Royals can't prevent people from putting up nude pictures or whatever because of free press. As public figures, they can't stop it. Basically, though, the royals are awesome. My sig can probably tell you this, but I wish we Americans had never won the Revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 As a Brit, I can say that the majority of us cannot find a single fuck to give... But we may get a national holiday at some point, so yay!!! I'll take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) It's really kind of depressing to realise that all the vested interest I have in the Royal Family was/is entirely hinged on the Queen Mother and the Queen herself. Actually Princess Anne gets some points too, but there's a lack of admirable figures like Mountbatten around anymore. Charles is so insufferable, Andrew is permanantly involved in shady business, Edward is a failure at everything, etc. Edited May 4, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It's really kind of depressing to realise that all the vested interest I have in the Royal Family was/is entirely hinged on the Queen Mother and the Queen herself. Actually Princess Anne gets some points too, but there's a lack of admirable figures like Mountbatten around anymore. Charles is so insufferable. You know, I've never actually gotten this. Why, besides divorcing someone he was forced to marry, do people hate Charles? He seems like a smart enough guy, which is a good trait to have if you're going to be King. I just hope the Brita don't end the monarchy because of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) He has a terrible image due to what you mentioned, and he had a bad habit in the past of making off the cuff remarks. The point of the Royal Family is to embody the state, to put their country, and their image before themselves, and Charles over his life has never really done so, he's lived for himself. In some ways that's not terrible, but it's not what people want out of the British Monarchy currently. They're representatives more than anything else. Elizabeth II has pretty much preformed impeccably in this regard, which means anything Charles ever does that can be criticised is looked at far more severely. Some personality isn't bad, the Queen Mother herself was a vibrant, lively, and all round wonderful woman, and she is by far the Royal I hold in the highest regards. But Charles doesn't really have any sort of endearingness, and he really has never lived down the Diana incident, (especially because of marrying Camilla) because the populace loved Diana (probably more than he did). I'd like to think of Mountbatten hadn't been killed by the IRA he'd have set him straight. I don't think the Monarchy will collapse after The Queen passes though, since William is not terribly unpopular and Charles won't be around for nearly as long as his mother was. God willing, George won't turn out like Harry, and Kate will be a good consort, so there'll be stability. Edited May 4, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) He has a terrible image due to what you mentioned, and he had a bad habit in the past of making off the cuff remarks. The point of the Royal Family is to embody the state, to put their country, and their image before themselves, and Charles over his life has never really done so, he's lived for himself. In some ways that's not terrible, but it's not what people want out of the British Monarchy currently. They're representatives more than anything else. Elizabeth II has pretty much preformed impeccably in this regard, which means anything Charles ever does that can be criticised is looked at far more severely. Some personality isn't bad, the Queen Mother herself was a vibrant, lively, and all round wonderful woman, and she is by far the Royal I hold in the highest regards. But Charles doesn't really have any sort of endearingness, and he really has never lived down the Diana incident, (especially because of marrying Camilla) because the populace loved Diana (probably more than he did). I'd like to think of Mountbatten hadn't been killed by the IRA he'd have set him straight. I don't think the Monarchy will collapse after The Queen passes though, since William is not terribly unpopular and Charles won't be around for nearly as long as his mother was. God willing, George won't turn out like Harry, and Kate will be a good consort, so there'll be stability. Thats fair enough. The problem I see is that he'll never have the chance to prove himself as an able monarch, due to the constitutional restrictions placed on him. Thats one of the main things that piss me off about British republicans; their two arguments seem to be "He has too much power! Abolish the monarchy" and "They don't do anything! Abolish the monarchy!" Oh, and I assume royal in recent history, right? I hold Queen Victoria and George VI in the highest regard. Edited May 4, 2015 by blah2127 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Oh yes, recent history, Victoria wins out overall I think. Although I'd say George VI and the Queen Mother essentially get to share credit for much of their highlights, so it's far too difficult for me to ascertain which between them would come out on top. As for the constitutional restrictions, I do actually agree with you that there should be some measure of input or discussion with the current Monarch about particular issues of state, mostly relating to foreign policy and international affairs. Internal affairs I think are best left to the current Government and the Monarch shouldn't be involved in those. Fortunately, we do have the House of Lords to help there though, it's saved us time and time again from terrible legislation from the Commons, and has only done so because the peers are unelected and don't have to toe a ridiculous party line in accordance with the Whips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Oh yes, recent history, Victoria wins out overall I think. Although I'd say George VI and the Queen Mother essentially get to share credit for much of their highlights, so it's far too difficult for me to ascertain which between them would come out on top. As for the constitutional restrictions, I do actually agree with you that there should be some measure of input or discussion with the current Monarch about particular issues of state, mostly relating to foreign policy and international affairs. Internal affairs I think are best left to the current Government and the Monarch shouldn't be involved in those. Fortunately, we do have the House of Lords to help there though, it's saved us time and time again from terrible legislation from the Commons, and has only done so because the peers are unelected and don't have to toe a ridiculous party line in accordance with the Whips. The question is how do you make it constitutionally required to have some form of discussion with the current monarch? In general, I think it is important to have an apolitical head of state with some form of power. It is a fallacy to assume that those in power will always abuse said power. Look a the US, where we had a government shutdown because one politician put his political agenda ahead of his country! I think that the monarch having some power would work well, as simply having someone in power who is unaffiliated with political parties is generally a good idea if you are interested in compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) The question is how do you make it constitutionally required to have some form of discussion with the current monarch? Well Britain pretty much has an unwritten constitution anyway, so such a technicality isn't hard to execute. The problem is that I think that the majority of Brits don't actually want the Monarchy to be involved at all anymore, and it's been this way for such a long time now that attempting to revert it would likely cause issues. The House of Lords is already frequently campaigned against by many people despite the veritable wealth of good it has done for Britain throughout history. It's mostly demonised as "undemocratic" by idealistic liberals/republicans rather than pragmatic ones, and unsurprisingly they're the same people who want to get rid of our Monarchy too. I mean, this is jure pure hearsay given that The Queen's lips are sealed, but had the Monarch been required to be consulted in the event of any open hostilities, I believe that The Falklands War would have still happened, but Iraq would not. Edited May 4, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well Britain pretty much has an unwritten constitution anyway, so such a technicality isn't hard to execute. The problem is that I think that the majority of Brits don't actually want the Monarchy to be involved at all anymore, and it's been this way for such a long time now that attempting to revert it would likely cause issues. The House of Lords is already frequently campaigned against by many people despite the veritable wealth of good it has done for Britain throughout history. It's mostly demonised as "undemocratic" by idealistic liberals/republicans rather than pragmatic ones, and unsurprisingly they're the same people who want to get rid of our Monarchy too. I mean, this is jure pure hearsay given that The Queen's lips are sealed, but had the Monarch been required to be consulted in the event of any open hostilities, I believe that The Falklands War would have still happened, but Iraq would not. So what if its undemocratic? There already is a perfectly democratic system in the UK. I am a firm believer that democracy must be moderated to prevent everything from being fucked up. And admittedly I'm not too well versed on the Falklands War, but wasn't it pretty much entirely Argentina's fault? The main argument against the monarchy really seems to be that its undemocratic, but the institution does not stop democracy from working. I merely believe it should be strengthened to help democracy further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psych Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 isn't he like 2 or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENS Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Chromgratulations, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 There already is a perfectly democratic system in the UK. "perfect" democracy would warrant referendums on every single political decision. Such a thing is impractical. Although I may not neccessarily agree with Hobbes and Locke on the State of Nature, I do agree that we have to basically give up some of our rights, and have a leader/system in place that imposes laws on us in order to create a functioning society. The question is how far you can go along that route? King John may have been coerced into signing Magna Carta but it and habeas corpus clearly indicate that even the Monarch is not/should not be above the law. We then arrive at another question; where do we get those laws from? I do believe in some moral absoloutes despite not being religious whatsoever, so those may work as a good baseline. To expand a little, I'd say that there are some non relative truths to reality, such as there being no inherant difference in worth between genders or races. I'm careful to qualify that statement, as different scenarios can give worth and meaning to arbitrary things (money is simply one example). I'd say that the inherant truth to that is akin to the princple of causality. I suppose upon further consideration that given we live within a society with historical and cultural values pre-existing, such truths aren't really all that helpful by themselves though, but at least it's a start. And as for expanding them PAST that...fuck I don't know. That's hard. I suppose that's where the principles of democracy come in, so that the majority can decide on those rules. I'm far from a pure authoritarian, but I'm also cynical about the capabiity of each individual, so I can't embrace pure libertarianism. I'd probably give up more of my rights in order for stability than some others would, but am left stuck between a rock and a hard place given that I respect the rights of others far too much to suggest that such rights should be removed forcefully! Difficult subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 "perfect" democracy would warrant referendums on every single political decision. Such a thing is impractical. Although I may not neccessarily agree with Hobbes and Locke on the State of Nature, I do agree that we have to basically give up some of our rights, and have a leader/system in place that imposes laws on us in order to create a functioning society. The question is how far you can go along that route? King John may have been coerced into signing Magna Carta but it and habeas corpus clearly indicate that even the Monarch is not/should not be above the law. We then arrive at another question; where do we get those laws from? I do believe in some moral absoloutes despite not being religious whatsoever, so those may work as a good baseline. To expand a little, I'd say that there are some non relative truths to reality, such as there being no inherant difference in worth between genders or races. I'm careful to qualify that statement, as different scenarios can give worth and meaning to arbitrary things (money is simply one example). I'd say that the inherant truth to that is akin to the princple of causality. I suppose upon further consideration that given we live within a society with historical and cultural values pre-existing, such truths aren't really all that helpful by themselves though, but at least it's a start. And as for expanding them PAST that...fuck I don't know. That's hard. I suppose that's where the principles of democracy come in, so that the majority can decide on those rules. I'm far from a pure authoritarian, but I'm also cynical about the capabiity of each individual, so I can't embrace pure libertarianism. I'd probably give up more of my rights in order for stability than some others would, but am left stuck between a rock and a hard place given that I respect the rights of others far too much to suggest that such rights should be removed forcefully! Difficult subject. I'm generally inclined to agree with you about most of this, except I did not mean literally perfect, I meant that being undemocratic does not lead into being some oppressive totalitarian hellhole. Of course the Monarch should not be above the law; I think in any constitutional monarchy the Monarch should have actual power without being above the law. In general, the ideal role of the monarch should be to prevent some law advocating genocide passed or some shit like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am still waiting for prince Charles to succeed the throne by the old way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I am still waiting for prince Charles to succeed the throne by the old way. What does "by the old way" mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttmuncher.ops Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 i assumed he meant how Prince Arthas succeeded his father King Terenas in 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 i assumed he meant how Prince Arthas succeeded his father King Terenas in 2003 I dunno why but I really love the bolded part of this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 i assumed he meant how Prince Arthas succeeded his father King Terenas in 2003 I wasn't exactly aware that there was some new form of royal succession that made Charles's succession the "old" way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethlyn Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I like history, royals and cute little girls, so I am delighted of the birth of the new princess. May she stay healthy and have much happiness in life~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoncat Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 gonna go ahead and sig this if I can. Great quote. I'm honored xD Don't feel like reading 2 pages of posts, I'll just say...I knew Diana was going to be on the top of the list for a name. They named her Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. One of her middle names is from her awesome great great grandma, the other is from her grandma...I'm too young to remember Princess Diana's tragic end, but it sounds like it must've sucked horribly. I think they made a good choice by not using Diana for the first/main name. She'd be forever compared to Princess Diana the first, this way they can honor her without that being a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Honestly, whenever I see a baby or a kid, I always hope for them to grow up to be a nice person since I have seen so many kids became bad adult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.