Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:30 amWho said anything about 'perfect'? You are the one who mentioned 'discipline' and 'self sacrifice'.
Focusing on an obese royal is a diversion from the main point though—royalty must defend their throne and crown under threat of death.
Their position in society is the most consequential one. No other person needs to worry, as much, about being attacked just for being born.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:30 amWho said anything about 'perfect'? You are the one who mentioned 'discipline' and 'self sacrifice'.
Focusing on an obese royal is a diversion from the main point though—royalty must defend their throne and crown under threat of death.
Their position in society is the most consequential one. No other person needs to worry, as much, about being attacked just for being born.
Give me a break. They were safer than the poor average sod, who had to worry about being burned for heresy, hanged for saying the wrong thing, quartered for shagging the wrong person, starving to death...
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:20 am
Are Royals supposed to be perfect?
Yes, they are. What is the point of them, otherwise?
Okay, so they're supposed to be Perfect, and what holds them accountable, except that they hold onto their Power?
If they are weak enough, then they would be Usurped, and a 'Stronger' one would replace them right?
I am referring to the British Royals, who don't have power, as such, but I suppose they have some influence in certain areas. They are not much more than figureheads these days, and their function is decorative and symbolic. Their role is to set and live up to standards that are above those of "ordinary" folk, and how they are perceived is everything. If they are going to behave like ordinary people, their existence is pointless.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:24 amThey are not much more than figureheads these days,
Hairball, do you have any idea how many times I, as an American, has heard that 'Cope' uttered by you Englishmen?
It's nearing triple digits.
You English seem to delude yourselves that you are not, somehow, loyal "to King and Country" above all things... I don't know, maybe you're all forgetful or something. Maybe you're in a daze.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:30 amWho said anything about 'perfect'? You are the one who mentioned 'discipline' and 'self sacrifice'.
Focusing on an obese royal is a diversion from the main point though—royalty must defend their throne and crown under threat of death.
Their position in society is the most consequential one. No other person needs to worry, as much, about being attacked just for being born.
We all have to worry about being attacked for just being born. Just for walking down the street. Just for being attractive to some nutcase. Just for being a child. And there's no one with machine guns guarding our palaces, I mean homes or bedrooms.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:24 amThey are not much more than figureheads these days,
Hairball, do you have any idea how many times I, as an American, has heard that 'Cope' uttered by you Englishmen?
It's nearing triple digits.
You English seem to delude yourselves that you are not, somehow, loyal "to King and Country" above all things... I don't know, maybe you're all forgetful or something. Maybe you're in a daze.
What on earth are you rambling on about, you silly little man?
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:26 am
Yes, they are. What is the point of them, otherwise?
Okay, so they're supposed to be Perfect, and what holds them accountable, except that they hold onto their Power?
If they are weak enough, then they would be Usurped, and a 'Stronger' one would replace them right?
I am referring to the British Royals, who don't have power, as such, but I suppose they have some influence in certain areas. They are not much more than figureheads these days, and their function is decorative and symbolic. Their role is to set and live up to standards that are above those of "ordinary" folk, and how they are perceived is everything. If they are going to behave like ordinary people, their existence is pointless.
The only good argument I've heard for having Royals (not that your making such an argument) is that by having Royals it keep the mythological with the Royals so the Prime Minister, for example, can be seen more as a worker and evaluated at such. Charm, being the rescuing Knight, being King or Queen can all be left to the Royals. And the politicians can work and be judged as workers. And with the idiocy on my side of the pond, I see the validity of having some sort of solution to human tendency to mythologize leaders. I'm not sure it's working, however, in the countries with Kings/Queens and having Royals also allows yet another distraction from more important things. They aren't news, except that they are, so they are. I mean, at least Britney Spears can sort of dance.
I don't see the point in ugly royals, not today anyway. They could be as hideous as you like in the old days because no one really saw them anyway. People don't want to see ugly people. The Danish Royal family is suitably beautiful. William could have at least got a hair transplant.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:28 am
Okay, so they're supposed to be Perfect, and what holds them accountable, except that they hold onto their Power?
If they are weak enough, then they would be Usurped, and a 'Stronger' one would replace them right?
I am referring to the British Royals, who don't have power, as such, but I suppose they have some influence in certain areas. They are not much more than figureheads these days, and their function is decorative and symbolic. Their role is to set and live up to standards that are above those of "ordinary" folk, and how they are perceived is everything. If they are going to behave like ordinary people, their existence is pointless.
The only good argument I've heard for having Royals (not that your making such an argument) is that by having Royals it keep the mythological with the Royals so the Prime Minister, for example, can be seen more as a worker and evaluated at such. Charm, being the rescuing Knight, being King or Queen can all be left to the Royals. And the politicians can work and be judged as workers. And with the idiocy on my side of the pond, I see the validity of having some sort of solution to human tendency to mythologize leaders. I'm not sure it's working, however, in the countries with Kings/Queens and having Royals also allows yet another distraction from more important things. They aren't news, except that they are, so they are. I mean, at least Britney Spears can sort of dance.
I remember a time when our monarchy seemed to be a source of national pride. The Queen might have been an absolutely horrible person for all I know, but she didn't come across that way in public, and she was highly respected; even sort of loved by many. These days, it seems impossible for anyone with celebrity status to keep their private life private, and the Royal Family have been greatly damaged by that. It's hard to be a paragon of nobility and honour once people learn you have all the human weaknesses and failings that they, themselves, have.
I agree. The Queen had an extraordinary mystique about her, almost superhuman. Carefully cultivated of course. She was very canny. The magic has definitely gone. Charles and Camilla have no charisma at all.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 12:26 pm
I agree. The Queen had an extraordinary mystique about her, almost superhuman. Carefully cultivated of course. She was very canny. The magic has definitely gone. Charles and Camilla have no charisma at all.
Comprehende!!?
