Like Tree69Likes

Royal family. Should they be banned?

Reply
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,113

    In south Africa they had a tradition of apartheid. That does not mean it was a good thing. Justifying oppression in the name of tradition does not make it right.


  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    8,561

    randy, you are really something....

    comparing the role of a constitutional monarchy to apartheid....

    you have absolutely no clue, do you?

    a constitutional monarchy is hardly "oppressive"....

    i don't usually call names, but you really are a moron.


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,586

    Yeah the Brits are oppressed indeed.


  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook:
    And what about the 100's of millions in tourist dollars/pounds/euros, that the British Monarchy brings, which like it or not Randell, is very much part of Britain's history and one of the few core foundational traditions that the English people have have left. An identity...

    Take that away and what do you have ? Nothing much in my opinion. Had China retained it's Imperial Monarchy, had PuYi been allowed to steer China into the future via his curiosity/fascination of western technology and society, todays China might have been a vastly superior nation to the one we see now. Possibly far more advanced than the Japanese.

    Food for thought....
    What about the hundreds of millions taken from tax payers to pay for royals butlers, castles, banquets, security, international travel, estates etc. I find it unbelievable that people tolerate it and/or that they are so brainwashed into actually "celebrating" their oppression.

  5. #15

    Some pros I can think of...

    Tourism
    Help contribute to the UK's identity
    Their events can really boost morale and spending and generally are another thing on the calendar for bored people to look forward to (meant in a good way!)
    tradition

    I think you are over analyzing them, they are more like celebrities than anyone that is seen as truly powerful (from my perspective).
    This is speaking as someone who isn't bothered about all that royal stuff btw, but as royal families go, they seem 'alrite'

    A lot of people criticize them for costing tax payers...that I don't know the facts of, but I wonder how much the average Joes know either, other than the usual pub ranting about 'how the world ain't right' type crap.

    All I know is, I'd rather everyone watch the Queen's speech every year than be glued to shite like Big Brother all summer, and overall there are FAR worse things to be ashamed of and negative about in the UK.


  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by carang:
    randy, you are really something....

    comparing the role of a constitutional monarchy to apartheid....

    you have absolutely no clue, do you?

    a constitutional monarchy is hardly "oppressive"....

    i don't usually call names, but you really are a moron.
    I'm not going to call you names. The smarter people here on geoexpat understand why I pose these types of scenarios

    Just because you call it a constitutional monarchy does not make it right. Just like calling apartheid "constitutional" doesn't make that right either.

    Try to work it out...

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    378

    Randy, why do you care so much? Are you British? Do you pay the British Government taxes?


  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    8,561

    constitutional monarchy. n. A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

    the smarter people on geoexpat understand you're a nut job.


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by SiuMaiTaiTai:
    Some pros I can think of...

    Tourism
    Help contribute to the UK's identity
    Their events can really boost morale and spending and generally are another thing on the calendar for bored people to look forward to (meant in a good way!)
    tradition

    I think you are over analyzing them, they are more like celebrities than anyone that is seen as truly powerful (from my perspective).
    This is speaking as someone who isn't bothered about all that royal stuff btw, but as royal families go, they seem 'alrite'

    A lot of people criticize them for costing tax payers...that I don't know the facts of, but I wonder how much the average Joes know either, other than the usual pub ranting about 'how the world ain't right' type crap.

    All I know is, I'd rather everyone watch the Queen's speech every year than be glued to shite like Big Brother all summer, and overall there are FAR worse things to be ashamed of and negative about in the UK.
    In terms of tourism, I support those who through their own efforts attract tourists. Musicians, entrepreneurs, playwrights. Etc All of whom pay taxes.

    I am sure many people might have been curious to meet Kim
    Jong The Dear Leader and gwak at his residence just like they do to the Dear Her Magesty Royal Highness Dutchess of Windsor bla bla. The fact that this might attract tourists does not justify the oppression of British commoners simply based on their birth parents.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ex Sai Kunger
    Posts
    7,971
    Quote Originally Posted by randy1:
    What about the hundreds of millions taken from tax payers to pay for royals butlers, castles, banquets, security, international travel, estates etc. I find it unbelievable that people tolerate it and/or that they are so brainwashed into actually "celebrating" their oppression.



    A reasonable explanation of how it works above, a little simplistic but good enough for this argument. The British government makes 200 Million pounds sterling pa, from the Royal family's land, they actually return a gross profit of 160 million. That's over and above tourist income. What's the problem, Randell ?
    Last edited by Skyhook; 17-06-2012 at 08:25 PM.

Reply
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast