While I’m sure London is kick ass and I love Indian food, London is not on my list of travel destinations (to be fair I haven’t seen most places).
What is it with royal tourism? The spectacle of wealth? The obtuse facade of goodness? I don’t get it.
2 Likes
Same. So very same.
3 Likes
Although honestly, shouldn’t pretty much all former palaces just be made into housing for the people?
It is a great city, and has a lot of see, well outside of the royals… It’s worth it just for the architecture and the museums alone.
25 Likes
Yes they should, but the people that need it aren’t the ones likely to be living in it.
3 Likes
If only we could make changes to that, but sadly, nothing ever changes.
6 Likes
The dislike of Charles seems to not only be restricted to the commoners. I think he was Rodney Dangerfielded by the nobility as well.h
I can almost see Chuck saying “F this aristocracy shit and all those pricks who gave me no respect. I’m disbanding the nobility, stripping every title from every living person, and ending the monarchy. No more House of Lords as there are no more Lords. All the lands will be turned over to the National Trust. You can stay in your house for a year or two while you try to outbid each other over the last remaining nice flat in London, which is going to be sold to a Saudi prince anyway. Too bad, so sad.”
That would certainly make Chuck the most beloved (ex-) nobleman that Britain will ever have, and ensure his prominent place in the history books.
But it would require a massive pair of stones. Not exactly one of his more notable attributes.
14 Likes
On that note, the Roman Colosseum was built by demolishing Nero’s pleasure palace. It was meant for the people…provided they weren’t slaves or criminals destined to be the entertainment.
7 Likes
That’s not even in the top ten best reasons.
15 Likes
No, it’s not. At all. A child born into a royal family can abdicate their role, just as a child born into a wealthy family can refuse an inheritance. Inherited titles, wealth and power are not social shackles akin to poverty and subjugation.
26 Likes
4 Likes
I think the most ‘fun’ part of this is when my mother starts gushing over the queen and maybe i don’t…
Probably can be considered a fault of mine that i’d just gloss over things to be civil over time, but i feel things coming to a head. Mum is a huge royalist for some reason, i literally couldn’t care in the slightest…
Next few weeks aren’t going to be fun as i’m NOT going to fake caring over the queen at all.
In my mind she had the power to influence things (and did so when it it benefited the royal family only) but absolutely refused to for her citizens… Making her at least somewhat complicit.
7 Likes
In retrospect I think she was like the current pope. She was good for a Queen but still had all the issues associated with someone who could hold the position. she also did not break the institution out of its more problematic issues.
17 Likes
I disagree. The monarchy serves as a figleaf for executive power that in a modern democracy should be subject to more checks and balances than they are.
In practice, the Prime Minister of the UK has more power in the UK than the President of the US has in the US. They can dissolve Parliament and call an election whenever they think it most politically advantageous. They can hire and fire Cabinet ministers at will: no need for confirmation hearings. They can appoint members of the House of Lords (who are legislators) as they wish. They can declare war (though convention, not law, now says that military action should be approved by Parliament); they write the sealed orders that sit in the safes of the captains of Britain’s nuclear-missile submarines, to be opened in the event that an attack destroys the UK’s chain of command. In theory, they can veto, unchallengeably, any bill passed by Parliament, but that hasn’t been done since 1708.
But in principle, they can do none of those things. They can only advise the monarch to do them, using the reduced but still substantial residue of arbitrary power left over from the middle ages.
As the monarch is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of their government, however, that’s a distinction without a difference.
We need a modern constitution that sets clear limits, checks and balances on the powers of the executive. I don’t think that’s going to happen as long as they’re wrapped up in the mystique of monarchy.
21 Likes
The Queen Is Dead, yet the fascist regime Still Remains.
3 Likes
Any man’s death diminishes me, for I am in love with mankind
…but in this case I’ll make an exception.
3 Likes
16 Likes
Don’t be cavalier…
28 Likes
It had to happen while I’m already off work for two weeks. I’m fucking furious.
22 Likes
As a Canadian, I fear for our currency. Chuck on the buck?!? Our dollar is about to get even loonie-er. And I doubt there is ample space for a single royal earlobe, let alone that entire improbable head. My pockets feel icky just thinkin’ 'bout it.
10 Likes
