|
PeonForHer -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/29/2013 4:05:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Yet there is no major clamour for change Peon. Remember what happened last time we were a commonwealth under the Cromwells? My problem with the republican viewpoint is it focuses on the Royals while the well and the good rip off the rest of us. Compared to that, the upkeep of the royals is small beer. As you said yourself, its only a formal title with no real authority (Titular)
Time would be best served getting rid of all the rip-off merchants first, the ones really sucking up the nations wealth dry.
I'd agree with you re that priority. But, as for the rest of it: firstly, Cromwell? Oh come on, PS! Do you really think our political environment is the same as it was in Cromwell's day? *Nobody* is that conservative, especially not a conservative like you. You've argued for far more radical change in all kinds of contexts and across the globe on these boards - but this change is too much for you? Nah. Not credible. As for the idea that focusing on anti-monarchism distracts from the more important issue of preventing the fat cats from ripping us all off - again, I don't think so. Most of what happens whenever there's a special national focus on the royals has the effect of doing exactly the opposite: we're told, for instance, that 'in these times of economic gloom Kate and William's wedding will cheer us all up'. (A particularly vomit-inducing sentiment for non-monarchists, I should say.) The issue of anti-monarchism isn't a distraction and a major focus for any given political grouping that I can think of. Not even Marxists bang on about them - well, they wouldn't, because as we all know, the capitalists are their main enemy.
Lastly, you must see that this line of 'It's only formal stuff, nothing has any real substance to it anymore - we're not subjects to the monarch's will in any practical sense' isn't an argument in favour of the monarchy, it's much more an argument against them. It's tantamount to saying, 'Well, they don't do anything important anymore, so why not keep them?' Pretty obviously, others - like me - are going to say in response, 'If they're not doing anything important anymore, why the hell are we still shelling out huge wedges of money on them - most especially during these lean times when for the price of one royal wedding we could stop the closure of x hospitals?'
|
|
|
|
