The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
Then I appologize. I have misread you post. Now, I see the dichotomy. I have also stated before that it is really not my right to chose, as I do not live in Britain. So, however the British want it is fine with me.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:11 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I understand Beatrixfan, I was absolutely CONVINCED when I graduated from college and I do mean the day that I did, that within 48 hours I would be receiving multiple phone calls and letters in the mail box with job offers, I had also decided and this was 1980, that I would accept the FIRST ONE that came in that offered me $75,000.00 a year. To my astonishment, NOT ONE!!

I was also convinced that within 2 at tops 5 years with my generation hitting the scene there would be a DRAMATIC overhaul in society, fairness, equality and opportunity would reign supreme, somehow it didn't happen.

I was also certain that gay people would at last, by 1985 at the very latest, receive full legal equality in the US. It was 2000 when the US Supreme Court finally ruled that states (including my home state of Texas) could not make consensual sex between adults criminal. I am still waiting for something approaching equality where I live in my legal standing and that of my relationship. :) I have learned to be grateful for being able to live safely and for the most part freely and not have to be concerned about being beaten while I walk down the street minding my own business. I vividly remember when that was not the case.
{personal comment deleted - Elspeth} I'm young but I've worked for my supper since I was 16 years old and I know what to expect from this world. Sadly, I know to expect from this country and so it annoys me when people say "Well, what are ya gonna do?" as if it can't be changed. I'm not asking for a vast salary, I'm asking for a little bit of fairness. Ok, the monarchy will probably still be leeching in 50 years time but I'd like to think that they had at least begun to pay their own way. How can you justify the Queen's numerous properties and assets when some of her subjects can't afford a basic dwelling and still have to pay taxes to keep her in corgis? That's not right and I won't feel grateful for having my health when I'd be alot happier keeping my 61p. As COUNTESS said, I want to see a more level playing field.

Now, the House of Lords thing. I'd give you the example of the Gender Recognition Act. Passed the Commons, didn't sail through but it got through. Well, that should be law. We vote for the MPs (I'd prefer proportional representation but ok), they introduced the law, they voted for it - it should be law. But instead, it goes to recieve the consent of unelected people who can send it back for review. Lord Tebbit (LORD Tebbit? What did he do to warrant that?) called it a bill promoting mutilation and other Lords said that it should still be legal for certain parts of society to be allowed to discriminate against transgendered people. How dare they! We didn't vote for them did we? Ok it passed the vote but the fact that they have a vote is unfair, undemocratic and wrong. Add to that that it then had to have the Queen (who's probably met three transsexuals in her life) bring it into law. The fact that the Queen and the Lords didn't reject it is not the point, it's the fact that they CAN reject legislation that I find abborent.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:29 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Inherited wealth is a fact of life in non-Communist societies (and in some Communist ones too, for that matter); in the USA, that great bastion of republicanism, the divide between rich and poor is far greater than in the UK. Inherited wealth is just as much of a path to power and influence in the USA as in the UK. The middle classes pay taxes to keep some of the richest businessmen richer and richer by the year in the USA, and people in some areas of the USA are living in the sort of poverty you'd be hard put to find in the UK. Getting rid of the monarchy isn't going to change any of that. If you want a position of power in the government, then stand for election to Parliament. As I said before, there are more MPs in Britain than there are US senators and congressmen combined, so you shouldn't find it hard.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:31 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I don't want to be Head of State but I'd like the chance to be just as I don't want to be an MP but the option is there if I do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:39 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Inherited wealth is a fact of life in non-Communist societies (and in some Communist ones too, for that matter); in the USA, that great bastion of republicanism, the divide between rich and poor is far greater than in the UK. Inherited wealth is just as much of a path to power and influence in the USA as in the UK. The middle classes pay taxes to keep some of the richest businessmen richer and richer by the year in the USA, and people in some areas of the USA are living in the sort of poverty you'd be hard put to find in the UK. Getting rid of the monarchy isn't going to change any of that. If you want a position of power in the government, then stand for election to Parliament. As I said before, there are more MPs in Britain than there are US senators and congressmen combined, so you shouldn't find it hard.
Let's not forget as well that in the UK, a person is GUARANTEED access to quality medical care and drugs I believe? There is no such guarantee here in the US and where I live, I have seen coffee cans sitting on convenience store checkout counters begging for money for operations, prescriptions, chemotherapy and radiation therapy for breast cancer victims, etc. People here DIE from lack of medical treatment and we do NOT have an aristocracy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:11 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Inherited wealth is a fact of life in non-Communist societies (and in some Communist ones too, for that matter).
That is quite true Elspeth. With money there is no level playing field. For every middle class person who looks at the rich and famous for being spoiled and undeserving of what they have will turn around and do the same thing for their children with the resources they have.

The same middle class person who complains about the rich who live in the best neighborhoods, get into the best schools and get the best jobs will do his dammdest to make sure to set his child up for the future by doing all he can his child gets in the best school, the best university, meet the right people to get the best jobs, give him a down payment on his first car, first house, etc. Looking out for your children and setting them up to succeed in the best possible way in life (and giving them money) is one of the oldest instincts of the human race. Its called looking out after your own and while the wealthy have more resources to look after their own, they're not the only ones who do it.

As long as human beings intend to give their children all the advantages they can and as long as parents have differing levels of resources to do that, there will not be an equal playing field. Everything about human development is geared to put oneself ahead of the pack and not with it.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:37 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Then you've accepted defeat. If that works for you then have a gin on me but I don't agree that we can't beat the rich guys so why bother. Every society has a class system, you're right - but in a truly modern country it's those who have worked to get to the top who are at the top. Though everyone deserves a basic standard of living, the rich and the poor will always be with us - what I don't accept and is a fundamental part of the monarchy is that some are desperately poor whilst some are extortionately rich and haven't even worked to be entitled to that wealth.
By your standards, there are no "truly modern countries." There is and always will be inherited wealth, unless you ban all inheritance.

If the monarchy was abolished today, the members would be just as wealthy tomorrow, and their descendants would be in generations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:48 AM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
That is quite true Elspeth. With money there is no level playing field. For every middle class person who looks at the rich and famous for being spoiled and undeserving of what they have will turn around and do the same thing for their children with the resources they have.

The same middle class person who complains about the rich who live in the best neighborhoods, get into the best schools and get the best jobs will do his dammdest to make sure to set his child up for the future by doing all he can his child gets in the best school, the best university, meet the right people to get the best jobs, give him a down payment on his first car, first house, etc. Looking out for your children and setting them up to succeed in the best possible way in life (and giving them money) is one of the oldest instincts of the human race. Its called looking out after your own and while the wealthy have more resources to look after their own, they're not the only ones who do it.

As long as human beings intend to give their children all the advantages they can and as long as parents have differing levels of resources to do that, there will not be an equal playing field. Everything about human development is geared to put oneself ahead of the pack and not with it.
The idealist in me believes that we [the people] have the power to effect change. We should demand [of our leaders and ourselves] that we not only use our intellect, but also our conscience for the greater good instead of relying on our instincts. The world has plenty of resources, yet the disparity of wealth is deplorable in some cases, greed ringing its ugly head for the most part. But the cynic in me knows that your post above is absolutely true. And that’s such a shame…
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 10-28-2007, 02:46 AM
hofburg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 120
Institutionalized Inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Then you've accepted defeat. If that works for you then have a gin on me but I don't agree that we can't beat the rich guys so why bother. Every society has a class system, you're right - but in a truly modern country it's those who have worked to get to the top who are at the top. Though everyone deserves a basic standard of living, the rich and the poor will always be with us - what I don't accept and is a fundamental part of the monarchy is that some are desperately poor whilst some are extortionately rich and haven't even worked to be entitled to that wealth.
Well put, BeatrixFan (as always, I might add).

I find this thread fascinating, and, so far ,refrained from throwing my two cents in, because I saw no need to repeat what others, have put so eloquently. However, given all the references to the notion that "There's already inequality in the world, so why do away with the Monarchy, as it is not any different". I've decided to, finally, throw my two cents in.

I have to say that Rupert Murdoch is irrelevant to this matter. He is a private person! Yes, there are rich people and some are poor, but, the point is that in a Monarchy, as opposed to all other examples presented, the inequality is institutionalized!

So, no matter how successful one gets, one would NEVER EVER be able to become head of state. That is not the case in the USA or any other Western Democracy, no matter how imperfect they are (and imperfect, they most certainly are!).

True, being born to wealth has many advantages. I'm not coming from a point a view that life is sweet and fair, and, indeed, those People born to wealth will have it easier. However, in a republic, even the likes of Bill Clinton (just as an example, let's not make him the subject matter of this thread as there are many others) could become Heads of state. That is why I think all the examples given are irrelevant as to whether the Monarchy should be kept or not.

No matter how you twist and bend with sophisticated argumentation, the Bottom line is that in a Monarchy, if you're not born to that specific family, there's one job, you can never get.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-28-2007, 06:22 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Though everyone deserves a basic standard of living, the rich and the poor will always be with us - what I don't accept and is a fundamental part of the monarchy is that some are desperately poor whilst some are extortionately rich and haven't even worked to be entitled to that wealth.
What you seem to be forgetting, is that their Gt, Gt Grandparents probably worked to get their wealth and their titles. Most aristocrats owned land and employed men and women, which enabled everyone to feed and clothe themselves.

Why should the 'born rich' have to give any more of their money to support the 'desperately poor', don't forget we pay tax at 40% on any interest earned on our investments and a blooming great chunk on inheritance tax!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 10-28-2007, 06:35 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
That is quite true Elspeth. With money there is no level playing field. For every middle class person who looks at the rich and famous for being spoiled and undeserving of what they have will turn around and do the same thing for their children with the resources they have.

The same middle class person who complains about the rich who live in the best neighborhoods, get into the best schools and get the best jobs will do his dammdest to make sure to set his child up for the future by doing all he can his child gets in the best school, the best university, meet the right people to get the best jobs, give him a down payment on his first car, first house, etc. Looking out for your children and setting them up to succeed in the best possible way in life (and giving them money) is one of the oldest instincts of the human race. Its called looking out after your own and while the wealthy have more resources to look after their own, they're not the only ones who do it.

As long as human beings intend to give their children all the advantages they can and as long as parents have differing levels of resources to do that, there will not be an equal playing field. Everything about human development is geared to put oneself ahead of the pack and not with it.
Indeed, you only have to look at people like Arthur Scargill, the union leader at the time of the miners strikes. Whilst encouraging them to strike and live without a wage, just handouts, he continued to live in his big house in a good area and draw a huge salary. There was even talk that the man misappropriated funds that should have gone to the men.
Move on to Prescott, life and soul of the labour party, 'equality for all', 'take away the privileges of the rich', whilst owning 2 properties and having use, almost rent free of 2 more!

It doesn't matter whether you have inherited wealth, which equals power, or have worked for it - Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely! The BRF may have money and position, but none of them have as much power as a common MP or the man in the street.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-28-2007, 07:25 AM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofburg View Post
Well put, BeatrixFan (as always, I might add).

I find this thread fascinating, and, so far ,refrained from throwing my two cents in, because I saw no need to repeat what others, have put so eloquently. However, given all the references to the notion that "There's already inequality in the world, so why do away with the Monarchy, as it is not any different". I've decided to, finally, throw my two cents in.

I have to say that Rupert Murdoch is irrelevant to this matter. He is a private person! Yes, there are rich people and some are poor, but, the point is that in a Monarchy, as opposed to all other examples presented, the inequality is institutionalized!

So, no matter how successful one gets, one would NEVER EVER be able to become head of state. That is not the case in the USA or any other Western Democracy, no matter how imperfect they are (and imperfect, they most certainly are!).

True, being born to wealth has many advantages. I'm not coming from a point a view that life is sweet and fair, and, indeed, those People born to wealth will have it easier. However, in a republic, even the likes of Bill Clinton (just as an example, let's not make him the subject matter of this thread as there are many others) could become Heads of state. That is why I think all the examples given are irrelevant as to whether the Monarchy should be kept or not.

No matter how you twist and bend with sophisticated argumentation, the Bottom line is that in a Monarchy, if you're not born to that specific family, there's one job, you can never get.
Well, you have the most sophisticated argument yet. Let say I’m persuaded by it, you are still overlooking one element which is, in an institutionalized inequity as well “a egalitarian democracy”, the decision of by the majority always prevail. While I may share everyone’s frustration about inequality, it will still be as evident as anywhere else. Bill Clinton, for all his merits and intellectual capacity had to out smart the establishment in order to survive. Which leads me to Ruppert Murdoch, who is most certainly not irrelevant to this issue for the reason that his TV conglomerate influences an entire group of people by keeping them uninformed, they then go to the polls. The result is even in a democracy the establishment is always working on keeping themselves at the top. If and when the majority of the British public decides they have had enough, more power to them. Until then, I’m afraid all I can do is sympathize.
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 10-28-2007, 08:59 AM
hofburg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
Well you have the most sophisticated argument yet.
I beg the differ, there is nothing, even remotely, sophisticated about my argument. It's extremely straightforward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
Let’s say I’m persuaded by it, you are still overlooking one element
which is, in an institutionalized inequity as well “a egalitarian democracy”, the decision of by the majority always prevail
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
If and when the majority of the British public decides they have had enough, I’m afraid all I can do is sympathize
Well, I never suggested other republics should declare war on Britain so it would abolish the monarchy My argument, as a non-British is academic. That's what we do on this thread. It is only for the British People to decide what form of government they want. No arguments there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
While I may share everyone’s frustration about inequality, it will still be as evident as anywhere else. Bill Clinton, for all his merits and intellectual capacity had to out smart the establishment in order to survive.
Indeed, but, as point in fact, he had an opportunity to become President. In a Monarchy, no matter how hard he tried, never could he have landed that position (Head of State). I have pointed out, that for people from a modest background, getting ahead is more difficult, but in a republic, even a person from the most humble family could reach for the top job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
Which leads me the Ruppert Murdoch, who is most certainly not irrelevant to this issue for the reason that his TV conglomerate influences an entire group of people by keeping them uninformed, they then go to the polls
Well, I'm afraid we'll have to remain in disagreement on that one. Ruppert Murdoch, is most certainly irrelevant to this issue, for the reason that he is a private man. Another business man could take a hold on his company or start a different Media conglomerate. He is not situated in his position by LAW.

I'd like to point out gain, that I'm not saying that the world is such a perfect place. It changes very slowly, the numbers of Millionaires as opposed to poor people are slim. But, that's no excuse to revert (or remain, as in this thread's particular case) to institutional inequality.

Afro-American people are very far from being treated equally on many levels, but now there's a Presidential Candidate. You could be dismissive and say "well, there aren't that many like him". True, but it's possible. When racism was institutionalized, there's nothing he could have done about it. (Beware, I know it's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point regarding institutional inequality, not to suggest any offense)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
The result is even in a democracy the establishment is always working on keeping themselves at the top. If and when the majority of the British public decides they have had enough, I’m afraid all I can do is sympathize.
You are right, but in a republic, ANYONE, according to the law, can become a part of the establishment, even to become head the establisment (difficult but possible, as already demonstrated). That's Meritocracy for you.

As for the British people, again, it's their choice only, and if they so wish it, may the Monarchy survive forever in Britain.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:02 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofburg View Post
No matter how you twist and bend with sophisticated argumentation, the Bottom line is that in a Monarchy, if you're not born to that specific family, there's one job, you can never get.
I didn't know we were bending the truth with sophisticated arguments hofburg, you flatter us. Actually there is a way for someone not born into a Royal Family to get the top job - marry into it.

Quote:
I have to say that Rupert Murdoch is irrelevant to this matter. He is a private person!
How much Rupert Murdoch would like you to hold onto that believe. As the head of the largest media empire in the world, he would like nothing better than for the man on the street to rail against the 'injustices' of the 'undeserving' royals who were born into the position, with Murdoch with his international empire often dictating the news that gets heard and a major force in forming public opinion and yes public action, is deemed irrelevant by the man on the street because he is a 'private' person.

Well this private person has more power over people's lives than many of the politicians and because his power is private and not institutionalized, it is harder for the public to hold him to account for his actions unlike a politician or even a monarch. The power of the press was acknowledged so powerful when Italian Silvio Berlusconi won the presidency of his country that laws were changed afterwards. Berlusconi got the popular vote but he owned all the media outlets in Italy so he controlled what people saw and heard about the candidates. If he controlled what people heard and saw, was their any wonder that the public responded to him with the majority of the public vote. The whole affair really brought into question the integrity of democratic electoral process.

To use another example, who do you think has more power and is harder to unseat, Elizabeth II, George Bush, Vladimir Putin, or Bill Gates? Bush and Putin may rule over the most powerful nations in the world but Bill Gates OWNS the most prevalent technology that connects the world today. Who here doesn't have a Windows machine? Who here works in a company that is not dependent on Windows technology? Who here works in a company that could cut its ties with Windows without any detrimental effect to its business. And yet Bill Gates is a private person.

The power of the world has long since moved away from monarchs and politicians. Now the business leaders are in charge and because they are private they are much harder to hold to account. The advantage of a wealthy royal family that doesn't have to scheme to get its position is that it cannot be bought. The same cannot be said for politicians. Right now the monarch in Britain is the only person who does not depend on favorable press for her job so for the moment Elizabeth II is beyond the power of the Rupert Murdochs although Murdoch is trying really hard to change that. If a president replaced her, do you really think he would care about what you thought of him? Whose opinion do you think a President would worry more about, yours or Rupert Murdoch's?
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:08 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofburg View Post
I
You are right, but in a republic, ANYONE, according to the law, can become a part of the establishment, even to become head the establisment (difficult but possible, as already demonstrated). That's Meritocracy for you.
.
Not anyone. If you are under 35 and/or were not born in the United States you cannot become president. So the United States has some restrictions also. The people around Arnold Schwarzenegger are trying to change that but they have a long hard road ahead of them.

I believe, hofburg, after reading your second post, that you are not really concerned with the real people that hold power in this country or the world regardless of how it affects the common man as long as you are given the illusion that you too could obtain this power and position someday. Is that correct? It is the dream that I could be a Rupert Murdoch or a George Bush or a Bill Gates too that is the most important to you, not necessarily the balance of power that is at hand today?
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:26 AM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofburg View Post
I beg the differ, there is nothing, even remotely, sophisticated about my argument. It's extremely straightforward.

Well, I never suggested other republics should declare war on Britain so it would abolish the monarchy My argument, as a non-British is academic. That's what we do on this thread. It is only for the British People to decide what form of government they want. No arguments there!

Indeed, but, as point in fact, he had an opportunity to become President. In a Monarchy, no matter how hard he tried, never could he have landed that position (Head of State). I have pointed out, that for people from a modest background, getting ahead is more difficult, but in a republic, even a person from the most humble family could reach for the top job.

Well, I'm afraid we'll have to remain in disagreement on that one. Ruppert Murdoch, is most certainly irrelevant to this issue, for the reason that he is a private man. Another business man could take a hold on his company or start a different Media conglomerate. He is not situated in his position by LAW.

I'd like to point out gain, that I'm not saying that the world is such a perfect place. It changes very slowly, the numbers of Millionaires as opposed to poor people are slim. But, that's no excuse to revert (or remain, as in this thread's particular case) to institutional inequality.

Afro-American people are very far from being treated equally on many levels, but now there's a Presidential Candidate. You could be dismissive and say "well, there aren't that many like him". True, but it's possible. When racism was institutionalized, there's nothing he could have done about it. (Beware, I know it's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point regarding institutional inequality, not to suggest any offense)

You are right, but in a republic, ANYONE, according to the law, can become a part of the establishment, even to become head the establisment (difficult but possible, as already demonstrated). That's Meritocracy for you.

As for the British people, again, it's their choice only, and if they so wish it, may the Monarchy survive forever in Britain.
Wait a minute… Declaring war on Britain? Your post completely confused me. Why don’t I address the part that my little brain could process, how is that for straightforward.

Yes, the law states that everyone has a fair chance. But, what is the reality we are truly dealing with? And since you brought up the subject of Obama, whom by the way has a white mother and has lived all over the world, therefore had a different set of opportunities. Where are most of the young black men in the US right now, in jail? Should we talk about the education system, which would allow someone to get to the top in the first place?

Yes, there are those who make it pass the gate, but in what number that would qualify as systemic? And when I say the establishment, I’m not only talking about governments, but also those with inherited (or not) capitals (that’s the name of the game) whose sole motivation and purpose is keeping the status quo. Those people lobby to keep their interests at the forefront of legislation. I could go on…

Let the British decide has always been my argument, and I have also said that I’m not for or against anything, because anything short of ideal is bound to upset somebody.
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 10-28-2007, 11:10 AM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hofburg View Post
When racism was institutionalized, there's nothing he could have done about it. (Beware, I know it's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point regarding institutional inequality, not to suggest any offense)
No offence, it's a debate so we are sharing ideas. Not when, it is still institutionalized, only slavery and segregation ended. How long ago, in the grand scheme of things, yesterday. That's also an affect of the establishment's plan to keep the status quo. I just wanted to offer this clarification.
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 10-28-2007, 11:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
No I think Prince Charles should be the last king if he outlives the Queen. Despite my personal amdirations about Prince Charles, I cannot see a happy future for Mountbatten-Windsors, moreover I am afraid the history will always repeat itself now matter how they try. The abolishment is acutally a win-win situation: one it releases these descents to have their own pursuit of happiness but of course they can retain their titles and have proper monetary compesations by future governments; second, I think in the future the real social system or social system is the government-the private sector-the nongoverment organisations-the non-profitable organstions. In a sense, the monarchy will have less and less relevance in people'e life.

I think raising the awareness of history tradtions cannot rely on keeping the monarchy but on the eduation system and on how people value the past experience and past wisdom and try to keep the best of them. Even in the film "national treasure" , I am amazed how these cities can be linked togerther to show the history pictures of US independence War and US does not have a long history. So if you cares about it, you have it. If you don't, you will lose it even it used to be yours.

Actually I do think everything should end in Charles's life and he can try to ensure that his family will be protected under any uncertain or unexpected circumstance. Since Prince Charles is a descent from both great-grand children of Queen Victoria, I definitely think it will be marked as the perfect end and after him the new era of a republican will start for goods. I think the circle of history will be finished after QEII or King Charles III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:36 PM
hofburg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Not anyone. If you are under 35 and/or were not born in the United States you cannot become president. So the United States has some restrictions also. The people around Arnold Schwarzenegger are trying to change that but they have a long hard road ahead of them
Yes, I believe I was aware of the fact that two years old can't run for any position (in any country, for that matter). Nevertheless, Thanks for clearing that one up

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I believe, hofburg, after reading your second post, that you are not really concerned with the real people that hold power in this country or the world regardless of how it affects the common man as long as you are given the illusion that you too could obtain this power and position someday. Is that correct? It is the dream that I could be a Rupert Murdoch or a George Bush or a Bill Gates too that is the most important to you, not necessarily the balance of power that is at hand today?
Your deduction is quite puzzling, to put it mildley...

It's quite astonishing, in fact, that you've, very conveniently failed to read my acknowledgment of the unjust situation in the world. Rupert Murdoch would be relevant if we were discussing the defects of the capitalistic system. I was trying to confine it to the subject matter of this board. BTW, if we were to have a discussion about the distribution of Wealth and Power, you wouldn't find me among Mr. Murdoch fans, to say the least.

I was talking about facts and the principal of Meritocracy: It's the best person for the job, while acknowledging the situation in the world. Repeating what I've, already, written, it is extremely difficult for people who haven't had a privileged background to get ahead. Is that a reason to legally shut down the opportunity of any of them to get there. Not to mention that in a Monarchy, one has to be born to a specific family. So, what you believe that I was saying, is quite curious.

Pray,how does, exactly, an accomplished educated person being elected to a position has a negative affect on the "common man"? How does a Monarch, as opposed to an elected Head of State, not necessarily a political figure, is more beneficial to the "balance of power that is at hand today"? I admire your writing style, I'm afraid I'm a bit lost as to the meaning....

Contrary opinions are great. They make this thread interesting. We most certainly don't have to agree. Chimene had replied to my posts, and I was trying, to the best of my humble ability to answer. She's presented actual arguments, I could respond to! In the case of your post, beside your obvious attempt at sarcasm, I cant find anything real comment on. So, sorry I can't be of more help.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:46 PM
hofburg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
No offence, it's a debate so we are sharing ideas. Not when, it is still institutionalized, only slavery and segregation ended. How long ago, in the grand scheme of things, yesterday. That's also an affect of the establishment's plan to keep the status quo. I just wanted to offer this clarification.
Chinene, I think the misunderstanding we have is due to the fact that I was trying to be very specific about the the issue of the Monarchy. As to your aforementioned assertions, I couldn't agree with you more. The distribution of wealth and the way certain ethnic groups are, still, being treated is nothing short of appalling. No arguments there! At all!

In fact, I agree with all your assertions regarding the social situation. What I'm saying is that, as far as a monarchy is concerned, I find it problematic that the Top Job, so to speak, is denied from anybody who is not from a specific family. That is the main point of my argument.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
finances, monarchy versus republic


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 05-10-2006 05:01 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena jordans king king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]