|
What's your take on royalty?
The royal houses of Europe claim their legitimacy from Divine right - the idea that a sovereign's right to rule comes from God. Does anyone subscribe to this? I don't. I think history shows that royal lines were established by the doctrine of "might makes right" (<i>i.e.</i>, the founders of the houses got to be King by knocking off all their competition).
Since all European monarchies are now constitutional, what's the point? Can't we have all that pageantry and tradition stuff without paying homage to people who aren't special in any meaningful way? I say, <u>prove</u> your worth. Otherwise, I don't buy your importance at all. |
Is this perhaps a question better suited to a politics board?
Any way, it's not your problem, is it? You get to enjoy the pagenatry without the cost. |
In journalism, there are four sure-fire bets:
sex royalty children pets I don't think any of today's European monarchs claim divine right. If their constituencies still support them, who are we to argue? The institution will probably die a natural death someday, but not anytime in the near future. Princess Diana still sells magazines. |
"The institution will probably die a natural death someday, but not anytime in the near future. Princess Diana still sells magazines."
A rather unfortunate choice of word there, kswl!! |
Ouch!!!---too right! Open mouth, insert foot. . . sorry!
|
As a matter of fact, it <u>has</u> been my problem. On numerous trips to London, getting around has been hampered by Her Majesty this or royal that, and it's a damned nuisance.
I don't get any value from the pomp and circumstance, anyway. It's bread and circuses as far as I can tell. kswl, an article on royal children having sex with pets would have a certain appeal. |
I agree that a pure political question really needs to go on another board.
The only comment I would make is...what if it is true that the Merovigien Dynasty did evolve from sources unknown/divine? It is interesting that we always discount the possibilites that could possibly be true. I believe it was the first Director of the Patent Office in Washington, D.C. that uttered the oft-quoted phrase..."Everything that is important has already been invented.." I would take that a step further and simply say that there are many things that we do not know of yet. The saddest thing about humans is that we do not know where we came from. I have done research on the origins of monarchies, as I was intrigued about from whence they derived. The fact is, that they of course did wield power to keep the vast masses of peasants ignorant and poor. My question however is "how did they position themselves intially to be educated and powerful in such frightening scales? |
The royal houses of Europe get their right to be hereditary heads of state from the will of the people. They don't rule, and have no such pretensions.
The constitutional oddities aren't the monarchies: roughly half the world's civilised states are monarchies. The oddities are the two great dinosaur survivals from the intellectual fantasies of eighteenth century intellectuals that haven't separated the job of head of state from head of government. Of those two, one is now governed hereditarily by a man who thinks he has a divine right. The monarchies, OTOH, are ruled by their people. And they decide their laws: they don't delegate that to a bunch of retired lawyers to decide whether the people's will would be approved of by a gang of long-dead slave owners with an aversion to paying tax. When will France and America get themselves a modern constitution? |
Robespierre -
It seems like your problem is actually a traffic issue - rather than a political one. And not limited just to royalty - we had one vacation complicated by the pope doing one of his tour arounds - things blocked off and other things covered in scaffolding to fluff them up for his visit. But I don;t think this justifies eliminating the papacy. Perhaps you just need to check the local news/papers so you can avoid the traffic - or specific holidays. |
I love all royalty, especially myself.
What does this have to do with travel? |
One can't blame royalty alone for being inconvenienced when trying to move around a city. The duly elected officials of the US will hamper you just as much. I live in Washington, DC and am delayed almost every morning when the Vice President and his entourage of 12 motorcycles, 8 police cars, 4 SUVs and 2 limos stops all traffic as it passes by on the way to the White House. No royalty here!
|
"The saddest thing about humans is that we do not know where we came from. I have done research on the origins of monarchies, as I was intrigued about from whence they derived."
Well, one thing we know about the royals in Britain---they aren't even English. They were Hanovers from Germany and changed their name to the castle they inhabit to sound more local! Robespierre, you give credence to the notion that there is a market for everything! |
Since Mr. Flanner has blatantly advised all of us in the past that we should butt out of European politics since Europeans obviously don't want, or need, our help, I shall graciously leave you to fend for yourselves with the traffic problems and any other nuisances caused by royal families, past or present.
|
Yeah, I'll tell my British business counterparts that I can't come next Tuesday because I'd be inconvenienced by the Royal Whatever.
They'd be impressed. |
mamc, are sure there is no roalty there??
|
Monarchies embody antiquated notions of humanity - that some people are inherently superior to other due to circumstances of birth. As such, it is part of the same mindset that justifies other repugnant concepts of humanity like slavery and ethnic cleansing. Small-minded people are incapable of getting past the Ken and Barbie aspect of royalty. "Aren't they purty!" Attempts have been made to justify monarchies on the basis that they will somehow miraculously unite a country during difficult times - that they are somehow apolitical and above suspicion. Of course it's all nonsense. During the Second World War most European monarchs fled their countries and let the "little people" fight and fend for themselves. The apolitical English monarchy seems to be infected with a longstanding fascination with Nazism. First Edward's overtures toward Third Reich and now the little punk prince (I can't recall his name) likes to dress like a member of the SS. The French (and Cromwell) had the right idea. Cut their heads off. |
Well it stands to reason that a person named Robespierre wouldn't be too keen on royalty.
|
Hah, hah! Touché!
(Actually, Max didn't have a problem with royalty <i>per se</i>...it's just that the republicans couldn't get Louis to see that there was a problem, much less fix it.) |
The question is related to travel because, especially in Britain, the preservation of royalty is inextricably bound up with tourism!
That said, I'd rather be a citizen than a subject. |
In my own family, I see support for the Windsors divided along educational, geographic, and age lines. The more educated, younger, and urban the family member is the more likely they are to want to see the Windsors made redundant.
The older, bucolic, and non-university educated family members strongly support the British Royal Family. These people tend to be conservative and traditional, viewing the Windsors with a sense of continuity and nostalgia. The idea that the Windsors are a tourist attraction is complete rubbish to me. Does anyone really think that when the come to London they are going to actually see Mrs. Q and her tribe? If you sack the lot of them, you will still get the tourists. Now, if you got rid of Harrods, that would be another matter. :) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 AM. |