Reforms to the Monarchy in the UK

I don't know how relevant it is but I thought I'd throw it in there anyway - most peoples issue with the monarchy is the firm belief that they do nothing and have no real power. I have to admit I fall into this camp myself.
 
There's some charity work i 'spose. The thing is I don't think they ever lost their power. The queen still signs laws in for instance so even if it is seen as just a formality doesn't that mean she still has te power to bring in laws? I'd love to see what Harry'd bring in
 
The royal family are quite simply the most disgusting example of class segregation ever thought up. there education is disgusting, there life styles are non believeable. Who is allowed into that family??? 1. Must be disgustingly rich 2. must be educated at a school that promotes class segragation and looking down on the people who work to build the country. 3. Must be prody.

SO HERES MY QUESTION TO ALL LOVERS OF CLASS SEGREGATION OUT THERE, IF I DONT FIT INTO ANY OF THOSE CRITIERA, WHAT AND WHY IS THERE ANY REASON TO RESPECT A FAMILY WHO WILL ONLY KNOW SICK DISGUSTING WEALTH...???
ALL AROUND US OUR LIFES ARE BEING DISTROYED BUT AT LEAST THEY AND THERE TOFFS KIND ARE HAPPY, GOOD I WAS SO WORRIED IN CASE THERE LIFES WOULD BE AFFECTED. LOL
 
So harry is adopted? The boy dressed as a nazi and ****ted a photographer you can't really put him in the same league as the rest of them
 
The only people I ever hear whinge about those who are 'rich' or 'toffs' are simply jealous of what they have an too stupid to do anything significant enough with their lifes to get that sort of lifestyle.

Yes in many cases rich kids money comes from the family - but I can be totally honest that if you Really wanted to get a serious amount of money it is not beyond possibility to do so in the course of about 10, 15 years.
 
Actually i think the problem most people have with the family is how much they earn in a year for doing very little that is beneficial to us peasants
 
The word class should not have anything to do with it, your correct. it should ahve ONE meaning only. and thats in a school for education. but the word was adapted by the RICH to give them a form of status as thats what Th uk is built on and private education and the royals are the 2 main sources of it.
 
Why shouldn't someone who has the money be able to give their children a better education than is availible within the state system?
 
You would be too busy having fun. It's easy to say you would care and give away all your money when you haven't got any.
 
Interestingly, I have very little problem with their welath or their work or lack of it. I have no idea in all reality what they do and whther or not they earn their money or not. Personnally I don't care.

My main concern about a royalty is that it stymies egalitarian values.

By acknowledging one family as being predetermined to be the rulers; by saying that by an accident of birth a person is to be held in higher regard than the rest of us; by justifying that purely who your parents and ancesters are and were, a person is inherently better able and capable to be the ruler; through all these things, it justifies all levels of inequality.

The same justification used to say that by birth they are fit to rule, can be used to justify that women are inferior to men; that race and creed are signs of one's ability and therefore other's inability. In essence it allows people to say that by birthright I am superior and you are inferior.

This is why a meritocracy is what we should strive for. By allowing people of whatever gender, race colour or creed to achieve the very best they can, and by allowing any person who is capable and best able to lead to rise to power, through democratic means is the only way to go forward.

And that does not mean that those we elect to publicc office are actually fit for that role. One only has to look at those who get into power in Parliament, and at a clutch of presidents and politicians in other countries as well. There are very few who truly understand that life as a politician, and the leader of a country is actually a life of service, duty and obligation. Once they attain the highest ranks of political life, their duty, service and obligation are proportionately higher. Yet very few realise that they are actually the servents of the populace, and that they must listen to the populace.

That does not mean that the poulace is always right. The politician or leader must also take the hard choices to do what is right despite the tide of opinion. But they must be humble.

Therefore the monarchy that does not recognise the fact that they are no better or worse than their "subjects" and the pollitician who believes that they are better than his or her electorate because they have power are just as bad as eachother.

I leave you with two thoughts.

The only man to enter the Houses of Parliament with any honest and just intention was Guy Fawkes.

Intrinsically any person who believes that they are a fit and proper person to lead others, is by definition not fit so to do.

Some of this might be off topic so for that I ask forgiveness.
 
I don't believe that for one minute. There are many of our MP's that are trying to make a real difference.



Some people are born to lead. Money or class has nothing to do with it.
 
I completely agree with you, Moi, that money or class has nothing at all to do with one's ability to lead. Hence my republican tendencies.

However, I am not so sure about the idea that anyone can be "born to lead". Leaders have a lot to learn before they can lead, and genetics has little to do with one's fitness so to do. The idea that somebody "believes that they are fit to lead" in many respects does not mean that they actually are, beacuse the responsibility of leadership and the obligations that come with leadership are generally huge. And anybody who believes that they are fully capable of taking on the responsibility and obligations of leadership cannot fully appreciate what leadership actually means. The leader must therefore recognise their limitations and do the very best that they can, but not believe that they are completely capable of leading. I hope that explains that statement.

With regards to my"Guy Fawkes" quip, many MPs may enter politics believing that they want to do great things for the people, but in the end they become just pawns of their party leadership. If they truly believe that they want to make a difference, then every vote in the House of Parliament would be a vote of concience, and each MP would do their utmost to learn the facts of every bill, the implications thereof, and would vote on every single matter in the house according to their concience. Instead, in the end most politicians vote the way their party leadership want them to do with no real thought about what they are actually voting for.

However, this is off topic sorry.

Coming back on topic, I believe that Monarchy is anti-egalitarian, and therefore not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
UK still aims to begin migrant deportations to Rwanda in the spring, Sunak says
Replies
0
Views
27
admin
A
A
Pope Francis' 87th birthday closes out a big year of efforts to reform the church, ce
Replies
0
Views
32
admin
A
A
The 14 best things to do in London
Replies
0
Views
25
admin
A
G
The best live TV streaming services to cut cable in 2024
Replies
0
Views
3
Geek
G
G
The best smartphones to buy in 2024
Replies
0
Views
59
Geek
G
Back
Top