Wills and Kate

[Damocles]

Yeah, I wasn't being serious. There might be more pluses than minuses in having them around but I think some people (myself included) just find the whole idea of it distasteful/bewildering.

I find a lot of Republicans to be driven by jealousy which is irritating. The whole idea of "what gives them the right to privilege through birth" is often really driven by "why didn't I get that privilege".

This very much falls under Wheaton's Law to me:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI[/video]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

 

[dobobobo]

Yeah, I wasn't being serious. There might be more pluses than minuses in having them around but I think some people (myself included) just find the whole idea of it distasteful/bewildering.

I find a lot of Republicans to be driven by jealousy which is irritating. The whole idea of "what gives them the right to privilege through birth" is often really driven by "why didn't I get that privilege".

This very much falls under Wheaton's Law to me:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI[/video]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

A lot of generalisation in that post.

 

[the god Gerry Gow]

Vive la republique

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Yeah, I wasn't being serious. There might be more pluses than minuses in having them around but I think some people (myself included) just find the whole idea of it distasteful/bewildering.

I find a lot of Republicans to be driven by jealousy which is irritating. The whole idea of "what gives them the right to privilege through birth" is often really driven by "why didn't I get that privilege".

This very much falls under Wheaton's Law to me:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI[/video]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

Yeah but... but...

No. It is sensible what you are saying. Lefties hate birthright. I hate it, you know the old Mr Billionaire banker leaves his fortune to his kids and they decimate the competition in their chosen game because they can afford to lose money for 10 years, then the monopoly is created and they can charge what they want..

It doesn't apply to this kind of birthright as you have demonstrated. Still though... arrrrgh! Silver spoons in mouths! Tough to get away from that ideology.

 

[blueish swede]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

I'm sorry, but that is just drivel.

The reasons for opposing a hereditary monarchy are based on equality, integrity and the fundamental values of human existence - to be regarded as equal in worth to all others.

The reasons for liking the royals are intransigence, childish fairy tales, and crap plates with pictures on.

 

[smudgedj]

Yeah, I wasn't being serious. There might be more pluses than minuses in having them around but I think some people (myself included) just find the whole idea of it distasteful/bewildering.

I find a lot of Republicans to be driven by jealousy which is irritating. The whole idea of "what gives them the right to privilege through birth" is often really driven by "why didn't I get that privilege".

This very much falls under Wheaton's Law to me:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI[/video]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

Yeah but... but...

No. It is sensible what you are saying. Lefties hate birthright. I hate it, you know the old Mr Billionaire banker leaves his fortune to his kids and they decimate the competition in their chosen game because they can afford to lose money for 10 years, then the monopoly is created and they can charge what they want..

It doesn't apply to this kind of birthright as you have demonstrated. Still though... arrrrgh! Silver spoons in mouths! Tough to get away from that ideology.

Birthright eh. Like the sons of Neil Kinnock, John Prescott and Jack Straw all parachuted into safe labour seats.

 

[Damocles]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

I'm sorry, but that is just drivel.

The reasons for opposing a hereditary monarchy are based on equality, integrity and the fundamental values of human existence - to be regarded as equal in worth to all others.

The reasons for liking the royals are intransigence, childish fairy tales, and crap plates with pictures on.

So you ask yourself:

"What is the cost of Britain compromising some of its values of equality in lieu of a British tradition that appeals to millions home and abroad?"

The answer is about £250m a year straight into the public purse and £X amount brought in by tourism. Not sure what the Swedish Royal setup is but I notice you aren't living in a Republic.

And absolutely none of those reasons cover why I nor anybody else likes the Royal Family. When you find yourself so laughably biased on one side that you write a sentence like that, you'd better serve the argument by not posting at all.

 

[SWP's back]

The people who like the Royals like them and enjoy having them for one of the myriad of reasons. The people who don't like them decide that it's not just ok that they don't like them, but everybody else must also not like them and they must be deposed.

They piss about doing charity work all day, pay for themselves entirely and bring SOME measure of tourism into the country no matter how big or small that number is. They have absolutely no negative influence on anybody's life at all and the arguments against them are philosophical in nature.

When the two sides of an argument have one side that brings real value both financially and emotionally to the country/people and the other one is nothing but philosophically good arguments, I'll choose concrete money and concrete feeling good over philosophically feeling good. People on the left wing need to realise that they don't have to die on every single hill and sometimes a net good is just a net good and can be left alone to be a net good.

I'm sorry, but that is just drivel.

The reasons for opposing a hereditary monarchy are based on equality, integrity and the fundamental values of human existence - to be regarded as equal in worth to all others.

The reasons for liking the royals are intransigence, childish fairy tales, and crap plates with pictures on.

I like them as they are better than you.

 

[Mossy1973]

Could any on the Royal haters represent the common wealth as well as Queen Elizabeth the second has?
I doubt it. I would bet anyone who could swap shoes so to speak would not last 12 months.
Her whole life has been mapped out, you will be her then, then off to here tomorrow, eating at this time wearing this Etc..

It is not a life I would want she has no "freedom" which we all have thanks to monarchs of the past defending there country.

Now congrats to William and Kate as this is what this thread was started for.

 

[dobobobo]

Could any on the Royal haters represent the common wealth as well as Queen Elizabeth the second has?
I doubt it. I would bet anyone who could swap shoes so to speak would not last 12 months.
Her whole life has been mapped out, you will be her then, then off to here tomorrow, eating at this time wearing this Etc..

It is not a life I would want she has no "freedom" which we all have thanks to monarchs of the past defending there country.

Now congrats to William and Kate as this is what this thread was started for.

Eh?

Why would a republican be a king or queen?