Pics of people glad that British prince died

[Michchamp]

*yankee doodle plays on fife and drums*

also these guys:

 

[tinselwolverine]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hGBlbbXiU

 

[tinselwolverine]

*yankee doodle plays on fife and drums*

also these guys:

In pic #4 - are those people STILL throwing spears at each other?

 

[byco42]

Someone please help me understand the purpose of royalty that has absolutely no influence in the ministrations of government. Or, at the very minimum, a cursory influence. It's an institution that has expired, IMO, and, in the case of the British Monarchy, has, to put it bluntly, a sordid legacy, which even applies to this present house of Windsor.

 

[Michchamp]

Someone please help me understand the purpose of royalty that has absolutely no influence in the ministrations of government. Or, at the very minimum, a cursory influence. It's an institution that has expired, IMO, and, in the case of the British Monarchy, has, to put it bluntly, a sordid legacy, which even applies to this present house of Windsor.

for all the progress western society made since like 1500, few places managed to fully rid themselves of the inherited aristocracy & monarchy. they still plague humanity to this day.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Someone please help me understand the purpose of royalty that has absolutely no influence in the ministrations of government. Or, at the very minimum, a cursory influence. It's an institution that has expired, IMO, and, in the case of the British Monarchy, has, to put it bluntly, a sordid legacy, which even applies to this present house of Windsor.

I think it's something between a mascot and a Monty Python joke where the main component of humor is how nobody acknowledges the absurdity. A silly walk with a straight face.

 

[Michchamp]

In pic #4 - are those people STILL throwing spears at each other?

no. but my quick internet search didn't turn up a good pic of historical zulu warriors

 

[Michchamp]

supposedly the British secret services used the Queen and some little known royalty clause to sack an Australian prime minister in the 70's who was straying too far from what the Americans wanted him to do. I forget his name, but I think it was in 1975

edit: so my point is they're not quite totally harmless.

I think the British had too much wrapped up in their monarchy to simply do away with it, so they stuck around like a mere relic at first, but now more modern special interests like corporate media, intelligence agencies, and other such entities who are not enthused about concepts like "democracy" or "regular people having even a modicum of political power" decide the monarchy can be useful to them from time to time.

 

[zyxt9]

I am far from an expert in Royalty, and agree the institution should be sacked; however, I do not believe the British Royals are devoid of power as implied.

The Brits did not officially enter WWII until the King's Speech. I am unsure if equivalent was required for Falklands or Afghanistan/Iraq/etc.

They also represent the British people in numerous ways, from foreign relations to philanthropy.

None of that is to say they are necessary as every thing they do can, and arguably should, be done by either the Parliament or businesses/individuals. Just saying I believe they still hold some forms of power and influence, unfortunately.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't see the harm. Given how many people complained about the TV coverage, people clearly aren't afraid of them, so let the people that like them, like them.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't see the harm. Given how many people complained about the TV coverage, people clearly aren't afraid of them, so let the people that like them, like them.

so you don't think we should round up every American who loves the Royal family and shoot them into space, like I do?

 

[byco42]

I don't see the harm. Given how many people complained about the TV coverage, people clearly aren't afraid of them, so let the people that like them, like them.

Do those who object to have the option of not subventing its standard of living, and would those who support the Royal Family agree to absorbing the difference?

 

[Gulo Blue]

so you don't think we should round up every American who loves the Royal family and shoot them into space, like I do?

Americans? I thought we were talking about Brits.

People waving Confederate flags are ahead of them in line. Maybe Buckeyes too.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Do those who object to have the option of not subventing its standard of living, and would those who support the Royal Family agree to absorbing the difference?

I think the amount falls under my threshold for getting upset about it either way.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's like $1-2 per person per year.
https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/

 

[Gulo Blue]

And I like museums and people working to maintain bygone arts and manufacturing technology, Greenfield Village kind of stuff.

 

[Michchamp]

And I like museums and people working to maintain bygone arts and manufacturing technology, Greenfield Village kind of stuff.

what does that have to do with any of this?

 

[byco42]

I think the amount falls under my threshold for getting upset about it either way.

I would never agree to $3 being deducted from my taxes to finance the presidential election campaign fund.

Seems that the UK taxpayer should have a similar box to check or leave empty in regards to the Royal Family.

 

[Gulo Blue]

what does that have to do with any of this?

That's got to be a significant chunk of the costs. On the scale of $1 a year. Sure, employ the 1 guy in the country that known how to maintain the century old royal carriage.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I would never agree to $3 being deducted from my taxes to finance the presidential election campaign fund.

Seems that the UK taxpayer should have a similar box to check or leave empty in regards to the Royal Family.

That would be fine too.