She still owns half the land. The military, police and intelligence services all swear their oaths to her above us. The higher courts belong to her along with the Judges & QC's. The Prime Minister has to meet her once a week, she can veto any law parliament passes (and to pass it must gain "royal ascent"), or even dissolve parliament itself. etc. etc.

But more than any of that it is a genuine fucking embarrassment to me that in the 21st century we still accept any member of our society declaring themselves our natural betters in law, or indeed the rest of us as being "subjects".

You are not a free citizen of the UK, you are a "Subject" of the crown in law. Even if this was pure symbolism (which I don't agree with anyway), what it symbolises is disgusting and backwards. (that could be the UK's tagline "disgusting and backwards" )

If you have a nation built upon a principle of Nepotism the end result should come as no surprise to anyone. The only good argument I've ever heard for keeping the monarchy is that due to the amount of land they own, paying their "wages" works out considerably cheaper than the rent they could charge the government......

...But if that's not a reason to strip them of their power AND rights to the land WE live on I don't know what is. They want to hold us to ransom? The mature response would be to give any such people a stark lesson about the collective consensual prerequisite of personal property. Not put a fucking crown on their heads and bow to them like the feckless goons we are .

Fuck the Queen, fuck her castles and fuck her family. The Corgi's I can turn a blind eye to, they seem quite friendly.....


"Struck a nerve Mr. Woo?"
Yes I fear you have! Please try not to take that as an attack on yourself however Mr. Flowers, you're not the one I'm being angsty at if you see what I mean.

Some people love their rulers. That's why they submit to them with such enthusiasm. But then we have the growing number of those who don't like the current situation very much. And, at a different level, you have the Samsoms and the Thiels...

It's not surprising, then, to see how Samsom pretty much lies (or, is at least being evasive to the point of being misleading) about the fact that the Dutch monarchy being merely "symbolic." Far from it!

1. Monarchies historically existed.
2. Contested thrones and succession wars really happened
3. We built a wall in Germany, and a metaphorical Iron Curtain.
4. Polytheistic beliefs really were in tension with monotheistic ones
0. Natalie Dormer played Anne Boleyn
5. People used to fight with swords.

But of course, the genre - Fantasy - is practically defined by being set in a period analogous to a mashup of 800-1500 CE with the twist that some of the ideas of the time are actually true (gods, demons, magic, fantastic animals etc).

For a women who hates monarch style rule . . . I'm pretty sure Lady comes from the monarchy.


(Or at least for the vast majority will conjure that idea.)

It's my humble and unworthy opinion that the only derelict transient scum that need to be culled form the English countrysides and cities, are the monarchy, complicit and dutiful parliamentary members, and anyone who hates the gypos

Oh, and that poor, white Euro-trash bitching about his gypsy neighbors-

Ahhhh, Morocco-Land of benevolent monarchy and infinite hashish!

Um, Ok, then go ahead and stop them.


Whoever controls the government, controls everyone else.
The problem with plutocracy: the plutocrats rule over you.
The problem with monarchy: the monarch rules over you.
The problem with 'democracy:' the mob (the supposed "majority") rules over you.
The problem with republics: the "people's representatives" rule over you.
The problem with dictatorships: the dictator rules over you.
The 'problem' with anarchy: no one rules over you.

So if you think you can take over the government and rule over everyone else, go ahead, try. Let me know how it goes.


Most (granted not all) so-called crime has more to do with law enforcement than with 'criminals.' Don't believe me? Check out this recently sifted video about the enforcement of the so-called war on drugs.

In fairness though, the monarchy doesn't have much power. Just like the US, the power is in the Congress/Parliament. The idea being that the stupid people will pay attention to the soap opera that is the president /monarchy while the real powers are relatively unhindered without public scrutiny. Of course in the age of TV and the Internet, this is circumvented somewhat. But still, in general people pay far more attention to the president than Congress even though Congress affects you far more than the president can

I can't downvote, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "monarchs just as bad if not worse as Hitler" as the bit of your comment that would be most likely to draw a "challenge" as you put it. You kinda godwin'd the whole thread right out of the gate which is a bit ... trollish.

I suppose one could maybe make a reasonable attempt at justifying that statement with regards to a few specific past monarchs, but even though I couldn't care less about the British monarchy I think it would be rather unfair to hold the current Queen accountable for what some of her predecessors may have done many, many years before she was born.

I'm an American citizen with ancestors originally from Germany, so by those standards I should personally be held to blame for slavery, Little Bighorn and smallpox blankets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the holocaust.

Also, I love the YT description: "One of the tricks of monarchic protocol is to make it obscure enough to catch guests and make them feel lesser beings. That's the idea of monarchy! Make everybody else feel lesser beings!"

Shared this video with a friend. Here's his response:

"These simplistic ideas which are correct in principle are ideals which in practice require trusted third parties to apply, since all is subject to interpretation. The point of the Constitution was to create a government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. These principles, marvelous ideals, were to be embodied in the Constitution. This video suggests that apparently the government is somehow separate from the people, and exists on its own like a monarchy or a dictatorship. This is not correct. If it were, then there would be no need for the ruse of elections. China doesn't have this problem. The idealist fantasy in the video exists only in the mind of these people, not in the real world."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'royal family, queen elizabeth, UK, united kingdom, monarchy, tourism' to 'royal family, queen elizabeth, UK, united kingdom, monarchy, tourism, CGPGrey' - edited by RFlagg

From revolution to institution. Welcome to the monarchy.

Hate to break this to you but @shatterdrose seems to have read his Marx while you seem to have watched too much FOX.

A 'Government' WILL ALWAYS EXIST in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY and WILL CONSIST OF THE POWERFUL (in modern parlance read: WEALTHY). This is true of towns in deep Africa, or nations, or in the future- planets of billions.

The idea that government is, of itself, fundamentally corrupt, or has any other predefining characteristic is a point of PHILOSOPHY and NOT THE ONE YOU ARE PUSHING.

The government is REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNED NEGOTIATING WITH THE POWERFUL.

The elimination of private property is an extreme reaction predicted by Marx and others AS A RESPONSE TO THE EVER INCREASING SHARE GOING TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE WEALTHY.

In theory, chinless entitled inheritees push the situation so much the people turn to violence to reset the system. As a comic side note, this has happened regularly and bloodily in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY WE HAVE A RECORD OF including the relatively comfortable European countries shortly before they gave birth to the US. (In fact the Puritans on the Mayflower executed the English King for corruption and briefly ruled but upon taking power banned parties, christmas presents, janet jacksons nipples etc and were rapidly kicked out with the monarchy reinstated..)

The modern social philosophers were contemplating how to avoid repeating history over and over. And by modern I mean the 195 year old man whose ideas you are publicly struggling with.

The size of government is IRRELEVANT. Its success or failure in negotiating on your behalf with THE POWERFUL WHO OWN YOU is all you should be concerned with.

Either you are a smart young Rockerfeller-Rothschild type playing clever PR, or the sort of loudmouth whose narcissism and stupidity has sold his family into neo-feudal servitude. Either way you should really shut up.

Nothing wrong with a benevolent monarchy but aside form the likes of maybe Hassan II of Morrocco in recent times and maybe King David or Solomon when the hell has there been one?

The Queen mothers' much more than a " figurehead that can unite the people" there sir, what fantasy cruise are you on??