Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/12/08 07:37 PM, Ledgey wrote: They're part of British culture just like the American flag is part of American culture. They're a national symbol. It doesn't "depend" on the Royal Family, but there is absolutely no point in aboloshing it.

But unlike the Royals, The American flag is not some human being with faults and imperfections that is only given it's high status because it happened to be born into the right family.

At 12/14/08 02:45 PM, animehater wrote: But unlike the Royals, The American flag is not some human being with faults and imperfections that is only given it's high status because it happened to be born into the right family.

No, it's a piece of freakin cloth with a few stripes and symbols printed on it, which people treat as though it is the lost covenant or something...

At 12/14/08 03:41 PM, CptBonbon wrote: No, it's a piece of freakin cloth with a few stripes and symbols printed on it, which people treat as though it is the lost covenant or something...

The fact that it is a cloth is what allows it a level of perfection. It doesn't have a body which it can do stupid actions or a mouth which can potentially give the country it represents a bad name. The fact that it is a cloth that is so beloved makes sure that the principals it represents remain.

At 12/14/08 04:28 PM, animehater wrote: The fact that it is a cloth that is so beloved makes sure that the principals it represents remain.

lol. Americans crack me up.

So painfully unaware.

At 12/14/08 04:28 PM, animehater wrote: The fact that it is a cloth is what allows it a level of perfection. It doesn't have a body which it can do stupid actions or a mouth which can potentially give the country it represents a bad name. The fact that it is a cloth that is so beloved makes sure that the principals it represents remain.

So what principles does this beloved cloth represent? Freedom from tyranny, like the founding fathers wanted? Well, fair enough, you don't have a monarch, but things like the patriot act have made the president more and more like a tyrant, and also, with your multitude of recent wars, you have helped set up tyranny in other countries.

Or maybe the separation of state and church? Well, one just has to look at proposition 8 to see that has gone out the window...

Maybe freedom is what it represents then? Again with the patriot act, again with the fact that you have ALSO restricted others freedoms in other countries, but also with a new one, the fact that America believes it can police the world... ell, thats hardly pro-freedom is it

So, if not these falsities, what DOES this magical cloth stand for?

The fact that it is a cloth is what allows it a level of perfection. It doesn't have a body which it can do stupid actions or a mouth which can potentially give the country it represents a bad name. The fact that it is a cloth that is so beloved makes sure that the principals it represents remain.

And it works the other way too, moreso infact. You're probably gonna refer to the Nazi Harry incident or something, yet as you can see from that, the media kept him inline. Yet the monarch acts as a voice and figurehead for the Commonwealth, which is a great influencial international organisation.

Like I said, there's no reason to abolish it. And anyway, when you say that it can give the country a bad name, give me evidence that todays monarch has truly given the country bad credibility, that outways someone like George Bush and the bad credibility he's given to America.

Like I said, there's no reason to abolish it. And anyway, when you say that it can give the country a bad name, give me evidence that todays monarch has truly given the country bad credibility, that outways someone like George Bush and the bad credibility he's given to America.

Outweighs sorry, excuse the various mistakes I make.

I loved that Harry was a nazi. Stupid mistake obv, but it gave him a level of realness, like he was a real guy around my age who sees the nazis as something mockable.

Like y'know everyone fucking laughs at Monty Python but these public figures of authority are supposed to pretend that they don't and that everything is tasteless

I know that's the world we live in, so it was still dumb, but man idc

AND he went to Afghanistan, I reckon that's good for our country's image abroad - not many major figures have kids or grandkids fighting the Taliban. I've seen a few dumb threads since the making of this one like 'do you all have to bow when she walks past' but I would reckon most people have an idea of the basic irrelevance of the Royal Family, their continually tenuous position in the public's mind, and that they're more a historical relic than anything actually important in the running of England.

At 12/14/08 05:36 PM, CptBonbon wrote: So what principles does this beloved cloth represent? Freedom from tyranny, like the founding fathers wanted? Well, fair enough, you don't have a monarch, but things like the patriot act have made the president more and more like a tyrant, and also, with your multitude of recent wars, you have helped set up tyranny in other countries.

Well, with some wars perhaps, but not too many recent ones. The last one we tried to overthrow a democratically elected person, I believe, was Venezuela, and the Venezuelans put their beloved Hugo Chavez right back in power. The Iraq government, as of yet, isn't quite a tyranny. Hopefully it won't be, but only time can tell for sure. After all, this is the first time these people have been in a democratically elected country in their entire history. Hopefully the government there is more solid than Japan's...

Or maybe the separation of state and church? Well, one just has to look at proposition 8 to see that has gone out the window...

You speak far too soon. Prop 8 was voted in by the people, but it is about to go to the Supreme Court.

Most American nationalists, though, do not actually recognize the separation of church and state as being an important part of the constitution, a bit which blows my mind.

Maybe freedom is what it represents then? Again with the patriot act, again with the fact that you have ALSO restricted others freedoms in other countries, but also with a new one, the fact that America believes it can police the world... ell, thats hardly pro-freedom is it

Hardly.

So, if not these falsities, what DOES this magical cloth stand for?

Well, I suppose it stands for the ideals that the country was created with. The whole 18th century enlightenment liberty, equality, freedom thing. And truly here in the US things are quite free, more free than they have been in years; I just hope that this dreaded new nemesis, "terrorism" doesn't actually cloud people's minds into thinking that we should become a police state. If we do there will be nothing worth protecting.

We have a few problems, definitely, chiefly: 1. Foreign policy (fucked up and outdated) and 2. Religious fundamentalism.

But under it it is really quite a good country I must say.

I will return to the original topic for a minute though: Why would England get rid of its monarchy? It has developed a functional representative democracy around them quite comfortably.

At 12/15/08 02:12 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

So, if not these falsities, what DOES this magical cloth stand for?

Well, I suppose it stands for the ideals that the country was created with. The whole 18th century enlightenment liberty, equality, freedom thing. And truly here in the US things are quite free, more free than they have been in years; I just hope that this dreaded new nemesis, "terrorism" doesn't actually cloud people's minds into thinking that we should become a police state. If we do there will be nothing worth protecting.

Sounds like you should read Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother", if you havent already. Great read...

I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

Apparently it gives, all us old bitter and resentfull Irish and Scots something to direct our stereotypical hatred towards, that everyone seems to think we have regardless of the fact a good number of us are unionists huns :P

Surley a figurehead that we despise so much is worth keeping?

And aye a was mocking people who think im not a peacefull chap!

At 12/10/08 05:22 PM, Ledgey wrote:

At 12/8/08 07:43 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 12/8/08 07:35 PM, MrHero17 wrote: The royal family and the palace and what not generate alot of tourist revenue so there's that.

lol

Now, like I suggested earlier we can still make tourism thrive, but without the huge cost.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.
asp?id=178

Tourist expenditure 2005 - £14.2 billion.

Small price to pay if you ask me.

that assumes first of all that EVERY single tourist is going just to see buckingham palace and all that shite, and secondly that it would make a huge difference if there was a king or queen living in there or not. the first is obviously not true, even without looking up data just the amount of tourists that flock to my area in the summer is enough proof. the second, well i dunno but i still think the tourism excuse is a bit weak.

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

It stops Gordon Brown being the most important person. The House of Lords is also something I am ideologically against but the Labour government would have eroded our civil liberties a lot more easily without the House of Lords. And without a monarchy we wouldn't have much of a House of Lords either.

I like to think of the monarchies of Britain, as sort of their versions of Paris Hilton. Don't really do anything, yet rank among the most famous people in the country.

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

Give one logical reason to abolish it other than "they do nothing" which is obviously not true.

Abolishing it wouldn't improve anything.

At 12/16/08 06:59 PM, Ledgey wrote: which is obviously not true.

How so?

At 12/16/08 07:04 PM, animehater wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:59 PM, Ledgey wrote: which is obviously not true.

How so?

They do ceremonial work which attract thousands. They work to better relations between countries.

The Queen herself plays a part in major representative and constitutional duties.

At 12/16/08 07:26 PM, Ledgey wrote: They do ceremonial work which attract thousands. They work to better relations between countries.

Are you serious?

At 12/16/08 07:47 PM, animehater wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:26 PM, Ledgey wrote: They do ceremonial work which attract thousands. They work to better relations between countries.

Are you serious?

... Are you an idiot?

You imply they do nothing, anyone with any idea on the British political system could tell you that they do something. If you want proof: Link

I'm pretty sure her day is busier than your day.

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

Give me one logical reason NOT to have the monarchy in place?

Besides, they do plenty for this country. They greet People of importance, preside over plenty of ceremonies, are an important cog in the British political machine. All in all, they ae quite useful, and i'm willing to bet their day is more full than yours....

At 12/16/08 06:59 PM, Ledgey wrote:

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

Give one logical reason to abolish it other than "they do nothing" which is obviously not true.

This. I already posted it but since you neglected to read it I'll post it again.

Abolishing it wouldn't improve anything.

You gave me an answer with another question. You nor anybody else has given me a logical reason other than tradition and pride. So basically everybody is saying they like the monarchy because it gives them a higher importance in the world. That's not a reason, that's a superiority complex.

The only good thing about them could be the tourism HOWEVER nobody has proven that they are the primary cause of tourism.

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

You mean like I already did?

The Royal Family are, in a time of crisis, a rallying point far more than the Government are (for lack of a better word).

Personally, I feel sorry for the Queen at times. Not least because of having to sit through the Royal Variety Performance every year, or having her Christmas Speech vetted by Gordon Brown so he can cherry pick the parts he can use to make himself sound better, but because she was visited once a week for ten years by both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

The fact that she cannot be bullshitted, and stood up to Thatcher trying to pull rank, indicates that she is a lot smarter and more in touch than she is given credit for. The same can be said for Charles, too, in all honesty - yes, he can be a pillock, but his head is screwed on and he has a lot of sense.

At 12/17/08 10:21 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 12/16/08 08:34 AM, Brick-top wrote: I bet no one in this thread can give me a logical reason to have the British monarchy other than national pride (which is hardly something to be proud of)

You mean like I already did?

You mean this?

monarchy are a pillar which props up what is considered English/British

I love democracy, especially when people are born into power (ba dum tch) If the monarchy are keeping the government in check (which I doubt) this is due to their birth right, not their political performance.

Well according to you and your source, the royal family should be cut off from the money they get because the cost is so high.

"61p per taxpayer"

Yeah, I'll say that again:

"61p per taxpayer"

Your complaining over a woman who costs you less than a pound a year?

Jees...

Take it from me, someone who doesn't care whether or not you get rid of your monarchy.

At 12/17/08 09:23 AM, Brick-top wrote:

The only good thing about them could be the tourism HOWEVER nobody has proven that they are the primary cause of tourism.

I've personally added an extra day to schedule Buckingham Palace in my trip itinerary. That's easily £90 for a hotel and another £100 for food and tourist shit that I picked up. Mind The Gap T-shirts and tube transportation costs and all that, gotta be more people like me doing this.

And no, I wouldn't have bothered with Buckingham Palace if there currently was no royal family.

At 12/17/08 11:27 AM, CptBonbon wrote: Your complaining over a woman who costs you less than a pound a year?

Jees...

Its no just the amount, its the fact you dont have a choice in the matter.

At 12/17/08 12:58 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 12/17/08 11:27 AM, CptBonbon wrote: Your complaining over a woman who costs you less than a pound a year?

Jees...

Its no just the amount, its the fact you dont have a choice in the matter.

Nor do we have a choice about socialized health care, road tax, rain, two day weekends or how sucky channel 5 is

Deal with it...

This. I already posted it but since you neglected to read it I'll post it again.

I answered you. Therefore I didn't neglect it.

You gave me an answer with another question. You nor anybody else has given me a logical reason other than tradition and pride. So basically everybody is saying they like the monarchy because it gives them a higher importance in the world. That's not a reason, that's a superiority complex.

The only good thing about them could be the tourism HOWEVER nobody has proven that they are the primary cause of tourism.

£37 million is really not alot, considering that doesn't go to her personally and instead would pay for her diplomacy trips around the commonwealth and the upkeep of the palace (which by the way, is undeniably a tourist attraction).

You cling to the belief that the Queen severs Britain's links to democracy. If you think that's true, look into how undemocratic the parliamentary system is. Like I've said over and over, abolishing the monarch will not improve democracy. If you really want democratic reform, vote Liberal Democrats or something.

At 12/17/08 03:15 PM, Ledgey wrote: I answered you. Therefore I didn't neglect it.

No, you answered with another question. That's not answering.

£37 million is really not alot, considering that doesn't go to her personally and instead would pay for her diplomacy trips around the commonwealth and the upkeep of the palace (which by the way, is undeniably a tourist attraction).

For fuck sake I didn't say it wasn't a tourist attraction and I even mentioned that you haven't proven they're the main source of tourism.

You cling to the belief that the Queen severs Britain's links to democracy. If you think that's true, look into how undemocratic the parliamentary system is. Like I've said over and over, abolishing the monarch will not improve democracy. If you really want democratic reform, vote Liberal Democrats or something.

No I cling to the belief that they're a waste of time, money and effort as well as democracy. Addionally I already mentioned whatever political actions they take they're born into rather than elected.

I've personally added an extra day to schedule Buckingham Palace in my trip itinerary. That's easily £90 for a hotel and another £100 for food and tourist shit that I picked up. Mind The Gap T-shirts and tube transportation costs and all that, gotta be more people like me doing this.

Wow, a trip to london. I'm soooo sure the only reason to go there is buckingham palace.

And no, I wouldn't have bothered with Buckingham Palace if there currently was no royal family.

That's your opinion. But that still does not prove they're the main source of tourism which is one of the soul things people who support the monarchy desperatly hold to.