Cousin of the Queen of the United Kingdom said abortion is worse than terrorism

[Sarcelle]

Is anti-Catholicism still very strong in Scotland?

Regarding the South American players, where they playing for the Rangers or the Celtics?

 

[BartholomewB]

Glasgow and Liverpool are major ports located on Britain’s west coast, just a few miles across the sea from Ireland, and consequently both cities have attracted, over the years, a large Irish Catholic population. Sectarian sympathies find an outlet in soccer: in Glasgow, it’s Celtic (for the Irish Catholics) and Rangers (for the native Presbyterians). In Liverpool, Everton is the Irish team and Liverpool the English team. That’s about as much as I know. Maybe some other poster who follows British soccer more closely than I do will correct me if I’m wrong and give you a fuller picture.

On a tangent, the sectarian divide didn’t prevent four young men from Liverpool from working together successfully, year after year. Lennon and McCartney are Irish names, while Harrison and Starkey are English names.

 

[ATraveller]

In my country, that’s the role of our president, who doesn’t represent a political party. They’re elected though.

But that’s problematic when you have to decide whether or not to hold a snap election or allow a coalition of smaller parties to govern instead of a larger party but without a majority. And over time they’ll get endorsements from parties or prominent partisans. Not only that, having been elected, they’ll get the idea their actions regarding reserves are justified and are more likely to use them. Someone not elected will have to think twice. Charles I was beheaded so there’s that.

the idea of taxes going towards a family to keep up their pomp and pageantry just doesn’t seem right imo.

Emmanuel Macron has spent €26,000 on makeup in his first three months as French president

A new report from the Government Accountability Office says four such trips early on in Trump’s presidency cost taxpayers $13.6 million, or some $3.4 million each.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/691684859/government-watchdog-trumps-trips-to-florida-costing-taxpayers-millions

William and Kate spotted on budget £73 FlyBe flight following Harry and Meghan private... - Heart

I think we’re seeing some dissonance now. “How dare these royalty act like royalty, like they’re above us! How dare they break tradition!”

Most of these costs go into security and staffing. Increasingly many elected politicians live more lavish lives at taxpayers expense. And they use the excuse they got elected so it’s OK.

It’s not a healthy environment for children to grow up in for a couple of reasons

That might be a better point but I don’t see how that’s too different from elected PMs with young children who get reelected multiple times.

 

[ATraveller]

Yes, I believe in the case of Canada, both our federal AND a majority of the provincial parliaments would have to pass it…

That didn’t stop Stephen Harper doing it unilaterally for the provinces. The argument was only the office needs unanimous consent (e.g. abolishing the monarchy or getting rid of reserve powers) but who inherits doesn’t.

 

[Lea101]

These royals have to keep up their pomp and ‘magic’. We may be fooled by a budget flight here and there, but really they are born more privileged than most people in the world simply because of their lineage.

Not to mention the harmful environment it provides to a child.

Not only that, having been elected, they’ll get the idea their actions regarding reserves are justified and are more likely to use them. Someone not elected will have to think twice

I don’t really know what exactly you’re thinking of, if I’m being quite honest. So I can’t really comment on that. A president isn’t that divisive, and if their actions are supported by the people, I can’t really argue against that.

The president still has limited powers, like the Queen. Only difference is that we don’t keep up the pretense that their family’s blood is different than us, and force their children to be in the public eye and be future queens/Kings. Or curtsy and give taxes to dukes and duchesses who usually do the bare minimum regarding charity work to justify the monarch’s existence tbh.

Additionally, the presence of a monarchy can lead/and actually has led to them hiding evil in order to ensure its survival. Andrew is an alleged rapist? No worries, Buckingham Palace will call ABC and threaten to deny access to Will and Kate. Diana is more popular than the higher ranking royals? No worries, they’ll do what they can to smear her name to rectify that. William is rumoured to have an affair? No worries, we’ll tell the media to keep quiet and report on Meghan again.

However, there’s more transparency with an elected official. Not complete, obviously.

I see your pros of a monarchy, I just think the cons are more grave in a moral/ethical sense.

 

[ATraveller]

These royals have to keep up their pomp and ‘magic’. We may be fooled by a budget flight here and there, but really they are born more privileged than most people in the world simply because of their lineage.

That’s more than some politicians. I’m not under the illusion they’re not privileged. They are. But some more thoughtful royals are very aware of it. They do their best not to abuse it.
I don’t care for weddings and all the trivial things but it’s better that that stuff is kept away from power-hungry, narcissistic politicians. They’ll be more intoxicated by their pride while steering the ship if that stuff isn’t kept away from them.

I don’t really know what exactly you’re thinking of, if I’m being quite honest. So I can’t really comment on that. A president isn’t that divisive, and if their actions are supported by the people, I can’t really argue against that.

Support could be very narrow. If opinion polls show 50.01% favour (or 49.99% against) this action. That’s a majority but very divisive.
That bit was about the inherent risk of officials who get elected. Many have this sense of entitlement in this age of everything that gets elected must mean it’s good.

Additionally, the presence of a monarchy can lead/and actually has led to them hiding evil in order to ensure its survival.

That happens with any institution though. We’re seeing some desperate attempts to delay elections and making ridiculous claims about mail-in ballots and try to undermine confidence in a potential win by his opponent in a country that’s prone to explode into violence.
I’m not going to pretend I like many of the royals (based on solid evidence not tabloid rumours) or even agree with some of the views they hold (“overpopulation”). At least we know one had the decency to abdicate though he didn’t have to.

Despite the flaws, I do believe constitutional monarchy is preferable over republicanism even if the people aren’t great. Same as I believe having a real representative legislature is for the best even if that means racists and real communists get seats and may even have the ability to influence minority governments. For those with a constitutional monarchy, if we get rid of it, don’t believe the alternative is some how better and if it’s worse, we may not be able to go back and we’ll be stuck with it.

 

[PickyPicky]

Harrison and Starkey are English names.

Or Harrison may be Scots. I believe as a rough rule of thumb -son names tend to be Scots or Norse. The equivalent for us soft southern saxons would be Harris.

 

[Lea101]

Support could be very narrow. If opinion polls show 50.01% favour (or 49.99% against) this action. That’s a majority but very divisive.

That’s a good point. But if we ever get to a point where the public is divisive against a certain monarch, won’t we have a similar issue? An extremely popular monarch may have the same complacency?

That happens with any institution though. We’re seeing some desperate attempts to delay elections and making ridiculous claims about mail-in ballots and try to undermine confidence in a potential win by his opponent in a country that’s prone to explode into violence.

There’s still more transparency though. A monarch has to be well liked because the moment they aren’t, the nation could crumble. As for elected officials, they get voted out and the system doesn’t have to fall.

When elected officials hide their evils, it’s mostly because they simply can. When royals hide their evils, it’s to justify their existence and the government/media will participate in it. There’s a reason why tabloids enjoy going after spares not heirs, not because of the characters of these guys, but mainly because they simply can’t go after the latter. Even if there may be a legitimate reason to go after an heir, you’d find that they won’t unless they really, really have to (e.g. The news is so blatantly out there, and there’s nothing else to report).

I’m not the best at articulating my points, obviously, but it seems like elected officials bring about a tad more transparency because of their temporary time in power.

Additionally, a monarch still has to play nice, and they still flirt with a certain sector of the public to maintain support and gain support. It’s almost like a reverse election (I’ll make you like me so there’s no vote on whether you’ll keep me or not). They’ll do whatever it takes to get support (like elected officials) but the only difference would be that with elected officials, you can vote them out if their dirty laundry is out.

We’ll eventually reach a point of time where a the support of a monarchy is going to be divisive so I wonder how that will look like.

And on the moral or at least psychological side, you have children who are forced to be royals whether they like it or not. And they grow up to be the face of something, not the voice of. Throw in money and status and you get a group of very stunted individuals who are carrying out a pseduo job.

And I know Catholicism doesn’t oppose the idea of a monarchy but I can’t wrap my head around equality and a class system based on lineage. As someone with Indian heritage I know this all too well, lol.

I do appreciate that the RF has provided a sense of unity amidst politics. Royal weddings etc are a fun event for all and there’s a shared culture there, so I’m not poo-pooing every aspect of it. It’s just that the cons seem heavier to me (while for you it seems to be the other way around, which I understand). I guess the recent Andrew scandal and how Elizabeth has treated it, as well as the Sussex/Cambridge treatment has made me more adamant against it!

 

[PickyPicky]

I think your points are valid. If we didn’t have a monarchy it would be very peculiar if we invented one. My own view is that our monarchy exists, it has pros as well as cons, and it works. There are plenty of areas of public policy where I would like to see change, but I believe that when it comes to the constitution it is wise to leave alone those things that work, and move very carefully in changing those things that don’t.

 

[ATraveller]

An extremely popular monarch may have the same complacency?

Yes. That’s why I like the idea of having an undemocratic entity and a democratic one placed in the way they are.

There’s still more transparency though. A monarch has to be well liked because the moment they aren’t, the nation could crumble. As for elected officials, they get voted out and the system doesn’t have to fall.

Not so sure about transparency. I believe Australia came close to being republic because the governor general did something that wasn’t liked by many. If they did remove the Queen, I don’t think it would collapse. But I would expect they would have the same issues again because getting rid of the monarchy doesn’t solve anything.
I’m certain there are countries where elections led to civil war. A few in African and Latin America if I’m not mistaken.

When royals hide their evils, it’s to justify their existence and the government/media will participate in it.

Not always. They were hostile to Queen Victoria.

a monarch still has to play nice, and they still flirt with a certain sector of the public to maintain support and gain support. It’s almost like a reverse election (I’ll make you like me so there’s no vote on whether you’ll keep me or not). They’ll do whatever it takes to get support (like elected officials) but the only difference would be that with elected officials, you can vote them out if their dirty laundry is out.

[…] support of a monarchy is going to be divisive so I wonder how that will look like.

Referendum. They’ve been entertained many times. I remember watching a documentary on Queen Victoria. The British were very close to becoming a republic again multiple times.

And on the moral or at least psychological side, you have children who are forced to be royals whether they like it or not.

There’s flexibility. They could abdicate and change succession rules so it doesn’t fall on a child.
The monarchy we’re familiar with is that it has evolved. Though never really an absolute monarchy IIRC.

I’m not poo-pooing every aspect of it.

I know. I find it very important that we can debate and examine these things.

I guess the recent Andrew scandal and how Elizabeth has treated it, as well as the Sussex/Cambridge treatment has made me more adamant against it!

It’s testing the limits of many monarchists including myself. As someone on the political right (except economic issues), I’m already odds with QEII’s heirs.
I like reading the commentator and fun contrarian Peter Hitchens even if I don’t agree with everything he writes. He’s a monarchist but proposed getting rid of the royal family to save the monarchy after these events.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Andrew is an alleged rapist? No worries, Buckingham Palace will call ABC and threaten to deny access to Will and Kate.

I think a more important question is why the Metropolitan Police refused to investigate the allegation against him. They are hiding behind the rationale that, “… it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.” The fact is that if somebody has sex with an underage prostitute in London, that would be a crime under English law, and the Metropolitan Police Service would be the authority with jurisdiction to investigate the alleged crime.

 

[Sarcelle]

As someone with Indian heritage I know this all too well, lol.

I can imagine, especially with the caste system.

I used to work with engineers from India and I observed that they only mingled with people of their own caste.

 

[BartholomewB]

I used to work with engineers from India and I observed that they only mingled with people of their own caste.

An Indian view:

https://www.julesgomes.com/single-p...e-based-racism-because-it-might-offend-Hindus

 

[ATraveller]

I was watching a Lucy Worsley documentary earlier today and it’s remarkable a lie made up by the Protestant establishment managed to stop Britain from reverting back to having Catholicism as the established church.
Smuggling a baby in a warming pan. It’s ridiculous the public believed that a baby could actually fit in one.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Kaninchen]

stop Britain from reverting back to having Catholicism as the established church.

I expect there was a little bit more to the situation than a warming pan - the country wouldn’t have just said: “Catholic King, that’s OK, we’ll just forget the last century and a half of strife and convert.”

 

[PickyPicky]

it’s remarkable a lie made up by the Protestant establishment managed to stop Britain from reverting back to having Catholicism as the established church

The warming pan theory was not responsible for England remaining Anglican.

In fact it was precisely the fact that the Old Pretender was not a baby smuggled in in a warming pan, but was the male heir to the Catholic king and queen, that triggered the events leading to the removal of James II and VII, and the entrenchment of a Protestant monarchy in England by the Act of Settlement.

 

[BartholomewB]

Smuggling a baby in a warming pan. It’s ridiculous the public believed that a baby could actually fit in one.

Warming pans come in different shapes and sizes. But in any case, whether or not the rumor was widely believed, it gave William of Orange the excuse he needed to make the trip to London, “to conduct an inquiry into the allegation.” Once he was there, his presence lent further impetus to the anti-Charles campaign. That was enough to do the trick, warming-pan or no warming-pan.

 

[PickyPicky]

It was certainly a jolly interesting conspiracy theory, and would today light up social media. Indeed it is still canvassed, astonishingly, by some of the more unpleasantly anti-Catholic websites. And the Prince of Orange certainly made use of it. But Whig politicians were motivated, not by bedpans, but by fears of a Catholic James III and a Catholic dynasty.

 

[ATraveller]

The warming pan theory was not responsible for England remaining Anglican.

I’m fully aware of that. I was being hyperbolic. I just found it fascinating people believed it. It did its job to keep the public suspicious. Same with some of the stuff said about Marie Antoinette.