babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Your behaviour has been drawn to the attention of the moderators.
Look, frmlsider, why are you so OBSESSED with Malcolm's opinion on this? Why is it so important to you to try to badger him into agreement with your idea that abolishing the monarchy/suzerainty/extremely over paid Greco-German theme park operation in Canada HAS to be an urgently pressing concern? You seem to be determined not to let this go until Malcolm gives in to your hectoring.
Why do you care so much about what Malcolm thinks? And why are you so bound and determine to make him PROVE he's not a closet monarchist? Would Canada be a republic first thing tomorrow morning if only Malcolm got on board with your thing?
There's no way the guy deserves this treatment from you.
BTW, is it just me, or do Will 'n Kate look, like, completely BAKED in that photo at the top of the thread?
I fully agree with you, KB. Malcolm shows enormous restraint given the provocation. The bloody House of Windsor chose Canada for the couple's trip abroad because there's nowhere else safe for them on the planet...including Australia. :)
Reading this thread I've got a wee voice inside my head saying "You think you're better'n me? YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER'N ME????"
I think that's the subtext of the abolitionists. What if Prince William, God forbid, thinks he's better'n us? What if he's SMIRKING RIGHT NOW?
They look like a couple of party animals, and right arrogant ones at that. My personal opinion is that the only Royal who should be entitled a paid vacation to this country is the Queen herself, and when she dies, the one who replaces her. The rest of the Royals ought to get real jobs and quit behaving like they are entitled to their entitlements. Actually, abolish the monarchy and use their considerable assets for public housing and the like.
I'm not on with the gratuitous foreigner jokes either. Reminds me a bit of "real Canadians" and "pure laine" and if I understand it's not the issue, nor should it be.
And if you looked at the history books, you might read that parliament put those foreigners on the throne so they wouldn't have to deal with another King who thought he only had to listen to God and the pope. Would you have preferred that situation, and the civil wars that would have gone on because of it?
As for the current situation, I would venture to say that he he's half-English through his mother's side (again, if not being a foreigner makes things any less offensive for you).
I seem to remember reading reports a long long time ago that the Spencers have a far older and better claim on the throne than the Windsors.
I'm curious what they do, other than continue to exist as the Royal family, that really constitutes "behaving like they are entitled"?
What is it they should do? Just announce their resignation one day? Sell the castle and rent a condo? Brown-bag it to the next state dinner?
Last I heard, the Brits are in no particular hurry to get rid of the Royals. I see nothing to suggest that they're sponging off an unwilling population, nor that that population would really rather that the Royal family go to work at Marks and Spencer.
Now if the Duke of Windsor had not met that American woman there might even have been a second beheading as the war warmed up. Or maybe he would have wound up in Franco's Spain in 1946? The monarchy would certainly have died in 1940, at any rate.
@ Snert
And truth be told, for all the talk of how much the monarchy costs, there are going to be a few shopkeepers making money off this wedding selling those plates posted above. Same for hotels, travel agents, restaurants, and lots of other businesses.
Even without the wedding, I am certain there are one or two newspapers that would be out of business if they didn't have the Royals as ongoing fodder for their pages.
Frmrsldr and Malcolm, you've both been giving a day off for ignoring my request that you stay out of this thread, and for continuing your embarrassing shit-flinging match (what is it with shit-flinging matches on babble these days? Is there a major tournament approaching?)
One last time: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ABOLISHING THE MONARCHY. Thank you.
It's Spring Fever!!!!
If anyone wants an interesting read about how Brits project on royalty, particularly women, I can recommend The First Elizabeth, Carolly Erickson's book on Elizabeth I.
While the "Virgin Queen" myth was very much part of her persona, she was also as open with her sexuality as her father, Henry VIII was - moreso, actually. It is interesting paradox that people were scandalized, but at the same time wanting to hold onto and protect the pure image they had.
I cannot imagine the same reaction to any male monarch.
As an aside, the book also has a fair bit of material on Puritans, and jut how much they pissed people off with their marching into other peoples' churches and tearing up anything they considered blasphemous. The parallels with their modern descendents is a startling example that not much has changed at all.
Don't you mean 'Fling Fever'?
My attempt at sarcasm obviously did not work in writing.
You are quite correct though that through his mother's roots he does have more of a claim on the throne than his grandma.
My hobby is debating as an end in itself.
As such, you are absolutely correct:
Debating the issue in itself isn't going to cause "Canada to be a republic first thing tomorrow morning (or at any time) if Malcolm got on board with me." Nor is it going to convince Malcolm to agree with me on abolishing the suzerainty of the British crown over Canada. Neither of which I was attempting to do.
What good, then, does debating accomplish?
The good debating accomplishes is that it improves our critical thinking and hones our analytical skills.
Malcolm is a highly intelligent and noble (debating) "opponent(?)" I was "probing" and "testing" his skills on how well he defends his views on this issue. If anything I've probably strengthened his views on this subject. And that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing.
No one ever learned anything by having others always agree with them.
Yes, but from whence do the house of Hanover/Gotha Saxe-Coburg/Windsor/Battenburg and whatever other "family name" they go by, derive their title, position, powers, rights, priviledges, entitlements, etc.?
As for the pope, these people are not under the authority/"suzerainty(?)" of the pope. Hank VIII established the church of England. They are entirely at liberty to choose to follow or not the pope's ethical and religious pronouncements and "edicts(?)"
What they could do is become "living history." Conduct their daily lives at Buckingham and Windsor palaces. Have these palaces serve the dual purpose of homes for the (former) royals and museums. From 09:00 to 17:00hrs in the winter and 09:00 to 20:00 in the summer, tourists come to take in the museums and watch the performances put on by the former royals.
Proceeds go to pay costs and the salaries of the former royals. If there are any shortfalls, British taxpayer money makes up the difference as it does now.
The guy isn't your OPPONENT. He's as anti-monarchist as you are. The only distinction is that he simply doesn't agree that abolition is as pressing as you do. That' the only difference. And yet you were getting into "prove you're not a monarchist" territory there towards the end of that. And you were getting personally abusive. Neither of which Malcolm deserved.
For crying out loud, drop it.
Also, all the palaces should be sold off and the proceeds from the sales used to create employment schemes for the unemployed and underemployed of the UK(and also to maintain full funding of the arts).
And, the royals should be put on the newly established UK minimum wage, and the royal allowances abolished. As Prince Philip once helpfully pointed out, the state shouldn't pay people to do nothing.
Look man, perhaps you should go read some history books and then come back if you really think you need to ask that question. I don't want to be insulting, but you don't have all the facts WRT what took place in the late 16th and 17th centuries.
FOr that matter, if you want to ask it, do it in another thread.
Actually, they weren't "entirely at liberty to choose to follow or NOT the pope's ethical and religious pronoucements and edicts", in the time of Henry VIII and, especially, Elizabeth I. In those times, a lot of Catholics were imprisone or even killed by the jailers of the Crown(as were a lot of people who were non-C of E Protestants).
Imagine for a moment (hypothetically), the royals stripped of their unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic, inegalitarian, unjust titles, powers, rights, entitlements, priviledges, etc. We would be left with fellow human beings who share with us in the equality of all humanity.
Persons who share all the strengths and shortcomings we all have as human beings.
If we search deep into our souls and ask the question,
"When we make fun of and laugh at behind the backs of these individuals, what humor and what pleasure do we derive from this? What good are we attempting accompish?"
What would our answer be?
We should direct our attacks not on the individuals who, in this system of inequality are, in a sense, just as much victims as we are.
We should direct our attacts on the evil that is the source of this inequality: the institution of the crown and monarchy. NOT on the individuals, who, like us, are also victims (though they are the ones with the elevated rights, powers and priviledges etc.,) of this system.
Or maybe you can go buy one of those plates, just to have the pleasure of scraping mushy peas off the face of your future tyrant.
Probably just as effective as this rant.
Sorry Catchfire, it was a nice idea, but I think the best approach at this point is to just start the countdown.
I'm entirely ignorant on this issue.
You're half way there.
Now go all the way and enlighten me.
Although it was a reference to a past event, I'm not actually talking about the past.
I'm talking about the present, which I think is what this thread is about.
Poking fun of, mocking, laughing at other people behind their backs (as some of us are doing to the members of the British royals) is something meanspirited kids do in high school.
This should be beneath the dignity and intelligence of babblers.