What is the Queen for?
Discussion
Qwert1e said:
I bet they struck fear into the hearts of the enemy!! They are put in a uniform and sent out to play because they are incapable of making their own way through life.
Show me any member of the royal family who's ever actually achieved anything. Anne is the closest I can think of and that's not saying much.
Phil- destroyer captain & good WWII record IIRC.Show me any member of the royal family who's ever actually achieved anything. Anne is the closest I can think of and that's not saying much.
Andy- 'copter pilot & missile decoy for HMS Brazen
Was it Harry who did the FAC role in Afghanistan?
Anne- showjumping champion type. HGV licence, too, btw.
Edward...........err........ I'll have to concede you that one.
Hol said:
Breadvan72 said:
Other basic stuff to be taught includes the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. The Queen now has jack all power, and that is as it should be. The idea of feudal ownership of land is a polite legal fiction. As for the Crown Estates, where do you think they got those in the first place?
I dunno??where did the crown estates come from?
I assumed they were the remants of the wealth they had owned since feudal times, but you obviously know something we dont. Care to share yoyr source of facts?
Breadvan72 said:
How do you suppose Monarchs obtained wealth in feudal times? Royal estates were originally obtained by force. Later on there was some trading but the foundation of the estates was violent seizure. Did you think they were a gift from God?
From whom exactly were they taken? To whom exactly should they be rightfully returned?For me, the argument that always seems to fall flat - is that the Royal families pocket money (Civil List) comes straight from the taxpayers pocket.
The Civil list is supposed to be funded ultimately by the Crown Estate, which generates hundreds of millions in profit more than they pay back to the crown.
Wherever/when ever you read about the civil list in books or on the internet, it always proclaims that as one of the agreements to its creation/why the government gifted the land to the people.
Why then, do we still hear arguments about 'freeloaders' and 'benefit' scroungers?
Rovinghawk, a bunch of dead guys, most no better than those who dispossed them
Now they are sensibly a public asset. The notion that the Monarchs did us a solid by handing over the loot is deferential hoo hah. They have had guns to their heads since 1649.
Some people may draw comfort from ideas of deference and ordained social order, but many of us just laugh at such stuff.
Now they are sensibly a public asset. The notion that the Monarchs did us a solid by handing over the loot is deferential hoo hah. They have had guns to their heads since 1649.
Some people may draw comfort from ideas of deference and ordained social order, but many of us just laugh at such stuff.
Breadvan72 said:
Hol said:
Breadvan72 said:
Other basic stuff to be taught includes the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. The Queen now has jack all power, and that is as it should be. The idea of feudal ownership of land is a polite legal fiction. As for the Crown Estates, where do you think they got those in the first place?
I dunno??where did the crown estates come from?
I assumed they were the remants of the wealth they had owned since feudal times, but you obviously know something we dont. Care to share yoyr source of facts?
Or that 'some of us' may have lost property and title by being on the loosing side.
But, YOU asked me where I thought they have come from
And my original point was that at the point they handed them over (100's of years later) they were fully theirs to give, no matter how they obtained them or how tarnished they were.
Rovinghawk said:
SilverSixer said:
Because, with the noble exception of the odd military salary, everything they are given is unearned. Everything they have inherited is the proceeds of violence and occupation.
So this isn't about envy, it's about justice? 
I was about to congratulate the other side for not playing the lame jealousy card, so much for that.
;-)
Rovinghawk said:
Breadvan72 said:
Now they are sensibly a public asset.
"Sensibly"?We don't know who they took it from so we'll take it. That doesn't sound like the moral high ground.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 12th September 14:53
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 12th September 15:31
Yes, but they lost and we won. Joking apart, defending the concentration of wealth in the hands of those who once took and kept it by force and who are no longer even tasked with governing the country makes no sense. The State changed, and so the ownership of the State's assets changed.
SilverSixer said:
I think we can all see that BV72 means "makes the greatest amount of sense for the greatest number of people". You're being a bit silly there, Rovinghawk.
'Making sense' isn't necessarily the same as 'being right', though.Before you take someone's belongings, I'd suggest that being right is more important than just thinking it's sensible. Not silly at all IMO.
Breadvan72 said:
The senior Royals got a sweet deal, RH - they got to stay on in the Palaces and a generous public pay packet. Why shed crocodile tears for unfortunate billionaires?
As a lawyer & educated man, please tell me how taking their belongings 'for the public good' is legally and morally justified.Also, my understanding is that you & others would like to remove what remains- is that not the case?
It was a generous (to the Royals) contract, not a hijacking, and even leaving aside the fact that the Royals hadn't come by the loot honestly in the first place, once you separate the government from a person, the assets of the government no longer stay with that person.
Do you think these people were anointed by God or something? They were the lucky descendants of a successful gangster, that's all. We take the assets of gangsters into public ownership all the time.
Do you think these people were anointed by God or something? They were the lucky descendants of a successful gangster, that's all. We take the assets of gangsters into public ownership all the time.
Breadvan72 said:
It was a generous (to the Royals) contract, not a hijacking,
Matter of opinion & POV, surely?Breadvan72 said:
and even leaving aside the fact that the Royals hadn't come by the loot honestly in the first place
The current royals inherited- is that not honest acquisition?Breadvan72 said:
once you separate the government from a person, the assets of the government no longer stay with that person.
This presupposes that the assets are the government's- a circular argument.Breadvan72 said:
They were the lucky descendants of a successful gangster, that's all. We take the assets of gangsters into public ownership all the time.
Only after a fair trial & production of evidence, no? I wouldn't like a state that takes one's assets without due process.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff