The British Monarchy

The people who believe in the monarchy aren't far from the people who follow Trump. Just another type of cult.

That said the people who follow united and the people who follow City are members of cults too. Except one is God's own and the other is utter scum.
 
TonyM said:
The people who believe in the monarchy aren't far from the people who follow Trump. Just another type of cult.

That said the people who follow united and the people who follow City are members of cults too. Except one is God's own and the other is utter scum.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to follow a team without being part of a cult? I would like to think and hope I do.
I would openly admit a City bias, but also think I view football in general objectively.
I like to see good football and acknowledge it no matter where it comes from.
I would openly admit to having a Republican bias but can acknowledge that although it’s not for me, there are many particularly on this island of Ireland that have an affinity to their Royal connection to history. They have their cult that at times seem to be living in a different century, but it only takes a short perusal through the Irish Current Affairs thread to see that their are some wonderful, insightful contributions from modern Northern Irish Unionists by tradition, forum members.
I can think of two or three off the top of my head.

You and I would not be classed as Royalists by anyone in here, I’m pretty sure. Anyone who’s been paying attention anyway.
Further afield , I would agree with a lot of arguments against it that were very respectfully presented in this topical debate, but I would not consider anyone who sees reason to maintain the monarchy in the UK as being part of a cult, in general.
There are probably some who are, no doubt, but I would regard some of the views on changing a constitution and the consideration that should go into it, as being very sensible, regardless of which side of the fence you are. For those sitting on the fence, even more so.
Referendum?
Percentage for or against a proposal?
Wording of questions asked?
Alternative offerings?
Post decision implementation?

Long term consequences if any?

My own personal perspective of how historically, British governance has implemented change in others’ territories without thinking through the consequences or odds on chances of probable messes being made. Perhaps washing their hands and not caring what mess is left, some would argue.
This view, to me leads me to respect the view of those on here that don’t necessarily support Royalism but are suggesting caution and thought and planning before calling for their replacement.

It’s the least you would expect in any decision of that magnitude. Could you imagine the bullshit and lies the public would have to sift through in a media campaign for or against any such proposal.
The propaganda. Think Brexit times ten.

I’m happy that we’re out of it and it’s Britain’s divisive subject alone. When you think of the bloodshed in the last century plus, resulting from our own extraction from the Union, isn’t it heartwarming that we can discuss and debate such a volatile subject so cordially in here and have every voice and opinion heard and appreciated for it’s honesty.

What a wonderful Forum this is. So much better than the RAWK and RagCafe cults.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Is it possible to follow a team without being part of a cult? I would like to think and hope I do.
I would openly admit a City bias, but also think I view football in general objectively.
I like to see good football and acknowledge it no matter where it comes from.
I would openly admit to having a Republican bias but can acknowledge that although it’s not for me, there are many particularly on this island of Ireland that have an affinity to their Royal connection to history. They have their cult that at times seem to be living in a different century, but it only takes a short perusal through the Irish Current Affairs thread to see that their are some wonderful, insightful contributions from modern Northern Irish Unionists by tradition, forum members.
I can think of two or three off the top of my head.

You and I would not be classed as Royalists by anyone in here, I’m pretty sure. Anyone who’s been paying attention anyway.
Further afield , I would agree with a lot of arguments against it that were very respectfully presented in this topical debate, but I would not consider anyone who sees reason to maintain the monarchy in the UK as being part of a cult, in general.
There are probably some who are, no doubt, but I would regard some of the views on changing a constitution and the consideration that should go into it, as being very sensible, regardless of which side of the fence you are. For those sitting on the fence, even more so.
Referendum?
Percentage for or against a proposal?
Wording of questions asked?
Alternative offerings?
Post decision implementation?

Long term consequences if any?

My own personal perspective of how historically, British governance has implemented change in others’ territories without thinking through the consequences or odds on chances of probable messes being made. Perhaps washing their hands and not caring what mess is left, some would argue.
This view, to me leads me to respect the view of those on here that don’t necessarily support Royalism but are suggesting caution and thought and planning before calling for their replacement.

It’s the least you would expect in any decision of that magnitude. Could you imagine the bullshit and lies the public would have to sift through in a media campaign for or against any such proposal.
The propaganda. Think Brexit times ten.

I’m happy that we’re out of it and it’s Britain’s divisive subject alone. When you think of the bloodshed in the last century plus, resulting from our own extraction from the Union, isn’t it heartwarming that we can discuss and debate such a volatile subject so cordially in here and have every voice and opinion heard and appreciated for it’s honesty.

What a wonderful Forum this is. So much better than the RAWK and RagCafe cults.
Click to expand...
I think the very nature of supporting a club in the modern sense is to be part of a cult. Made worse by today's media and the need for everyone to best everyone else.

I must admit that a large part of my enjoyment these days is in seeing other fans suffer. Losing the FA Cup wasn't so bad because it was a missed opportunity for more silverware. We have loads of silverware now. It was allowing united to have their moment. I wanted to laugh at them and it was a big let down that we couldn't.

Anyhow, down with Kings, down with royalty, down with the silly class system of Britain but I can't argue that the alternatives are any better.

We were lucky in Ireland to have a series of genuinely lovely people as presidents. It may be that our presidents have been a reflection of our culture and that culture is pretty decent and good. I'm not sure how you recreate that elsewhere. Or all of that could simply be nonsense.

Anyway eat cake and off with their heads.
 
TonyM said:
I think the very nature of supporting a club in the modern sense is to be part of a cult. Made worse by today's media and the need for everyone to best everyone else.

I must admit that a large part of my enjoyment these days is in seeing other fans suffer. Losing the FA Cup wasn't so bad because it was a missed opportunity for more silverware. We have loads of silverware now. It was allowing united to have their moment. I wanted to laugh at them and it was a big let down that we couldn't.

Anyhow, down with Kings, down with royalty, down with the silly class system of Britain but I can't argue that the alternatives are any better.

We were lucky in Ireland to have a series of genuinely lovely people as presidents. It may be that our presidents have been a reflection of our culture and that culture is pretty decent and good. I'm not sure how you recreate that elsewhere. Or all of that could simply be nonsense.

Anyway eat cake and off with their heads.
Click to expand...
You mean you didn’t vote for Dana?
 
BrianW said:
It's just a very, very expensive soap opera. Like a nationalised Coronation Street.

FFS, they aren't even proper royals. Just substitutes brought in by Parliament because the last Stuart King was a Catholic and his two daughters died childless.
Click to expand...

Went to his grand daughter instead.
 
BrianW said:
It's just a very, very expensive soap opera. Like a nationalised Coronation Street.

FFS, they aren't even proper royals. Just substitutes brought in by Parliament because the last Stuart King was a Catholic and his two daughters died childless.
Click to expand...
Is there a modern pretender?
 
Kirkstall Blue said:


Ryan proving the empty seat theory wrong on Twitter beat us on the pitch not on the pitchers
Click to expand...


KS55 said:
I was rather assuming that once the monarchy had gone, a Republican House would abolish titles etc. How could they not given the upheaval that removal of the monarchy would need since they can’t be legislated out or existence. One of the reasons for politicians being predominantly upper class is the existence of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
None of that is guaranteed not all politicians are upper class, bringing the discussion down to a working class family there is nothing stopping us becoming a politician and working our way up. The GCSE results are out today and all those 9 * some will make it to the top with determination and dedication.
A few of those that fail will make it in their chosen field, that’s what is good about knowing the system we already have in place. Why thousands of people risk there lives crossing the channel in a dinghy every day to take on opportunities in these islands
 
Gremlin said:
Noting my examples of aristocratic titles still existing in a number of European countries that are republics, it would seem that isn't a safe assumption. Also, as I was saying before, getting rid of the monarchy doesn't get rid of rich, posh people who went to Eton so why would the politicians change? A large proportion of the French political class or civil service went to the École Nationale and they haven't had a monarch for a very long time.

Class divisions are a feature of pretty much everywhere. Ours is just a different manifestation of it - with more bling.
Click to expand...

Neither the French or Italian states recognise the titles of their former nobility. Unlike their British counterparts they have no legal status and thus enjoy no legal privileges.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Fair enough. I am old like you, but I think you are understating the pace of technological change and the effects it is going to have on society in the next couple of generations. I doubt pre-technological revolution measures like "who owns what land?" are going to be as important as questions like "how can we produce as much as possible (or even, just enough) on the land?". When questions become existential, change will follow. Whether that means abolishing the monarchy and all the accoutrements that seem to upset you so much, we will have to wait and see. I will be dead, of course. So I don't care :)
Click to expand...
Being dead is no excuse.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Might need to try that again.

You're mixing up James II with his grandfather James I.

And it passed to George I, James the first's great-grandson.
Click to expand...
Isn’t he the German guy who didn’t speak English. Needed an interpreter to know what parliament were talking about.
But he was Protestant so parliament thought, ‘He’ll do’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top