modern royalty, obsolete?

[Exarch]

compare the function of royals today with royals today (mainly PR driven with charitable arims, or entertainment for the masses, eg prince charles) to the function of the royals from say pre-1800s, or even medieval era where kings and princes went to war at te head of an army.
why the change hmmm? i mean i'd respect a king more if he acted like a king ie like king henry V or the black prince.

on that note, i msut say that personally i was a bit peeved the royals wouldnt let prince harry go to iraq; the kid probably feels so stifled and iraq'd be a great place for him to hang out with his mates and have relative 'freedom' from the expectations of the royals; not to mention he'd earn my respect as a possible claimant to the throne.

if he went to iraq and served, i would become a wholehearted monarchist in support of the windosrs, instead of an apathetic colonial

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Democracy > hereditary autocrats

[Big War Bird]

Death to the nobility.

Seriously.









I'm not joking.

[Exarch]

Death to the nobility.

Seriously.









I'm not joking.

whoa, calm down robespierre

[Captain Blackadder]

Well there are positives to having a monarchy or something along those lines. That is with a monarch the political leader of the land (The Prime Minister) can focus on leading the country whilst the monarh can do all the petty stuff like meating the team of the week or opening some memorial things like that. I wonder how much of Bushes time is wasted doing stuff like that.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Death to the nobility.

Seriously.









I'm not joking.

i concour

hang them

[Ummagumma]

on that note, i msut say that personally i was a bit peeved the royals wouldnt let prince harry go to iraq; the kid probably feels so stifled and iraq'd be a great place for him to hang out with his mates and have relative 'freedom' from the expectations of the royals; not to mention he'd earn my respect as a possible claimant to the throne.

I don't think the main reason was to stifle him, or even to, directly, protect him. He would be such a large target that his presense would most probably bring about a increase in activity to capture or kill him. That would endanger many other servicemen/women more than they are already at risk. Due to his status he could not just fulfil his role, he would require protection that would remove personnel from other operations, and so be more of a handicap and bullet magnet to our already stretched forces.

Not to mention our beautiful media finding it necessary to follow him around to capture the 'Royal at War' for a nice little news report -blowing any potential secrecy concerning his location and function. There are far too many negatives in his presence there to let him go to 'prove himself' to some people..

As for the main question, I am not at all a Royalist, and dislike hereditary peers and much other baggage our nation carries, but I have neither the will nor inclination to protest. They are not obsolete, as many still like their presence, but I find it unnecessary, frivolous and archaic.

[MaximiIian]

I think monarchy is needed now, more than ever. While I am a socialist, I believe that a democratic socialist society is best formed under the stewardship of a constitutional monarch, who is simultaneously legal head of state, and defender of the workers' rights. However, I am against absolute monarchy, and I am against a strong noble class. I believe a democratic polity is the best structure for a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy.

[Exarch]

I don't think the main reason was to stifle him, or even to, directly, protect him. He would be such a large target that his presense would most probably bring about a increase in activity to capture or kill him. That would endanger many other servicemen/women more than they are already at risk. Due to his status he could not just fulfil his role, he would require protection that would remove personnel from other operations, and so be more of a handicap and bullet magnet to our already stretched forces.

hmmm good points, tho he could serve in anonymity i think.
also, the servicemen would be no less at risk in any other battlefield vietnam-esque type situation.
as a commander, it'd give him responsibility and focusn serving in iraq-things a young man needs, as well as the act of putting himself in danger which is what the service entails, not to mention the burdens of leadership and royalty.
he did say he didnt want preferential treatment.

Not to mention our beautiful media finding it necessary to follow him around to capture the 'Royal at War' for a nice little news report -blowing any potential secrecy concerning his location and function. There are far too many negatives in his presence there to let him go to 'prove himself' to some people..

surely there are safeguards against nosey paparazzi. not to mention military censors.

As for the main question, I am not at all a Royalist, and dislike hereditary peers and much other baggage our nation carries, but I have neither the will nor inclination to protest. They are not obsolete, as many still like their presence, but I find it unnecessary, frivolous and archaic.

[/QUOTE]

which is why i think it'd be great if royalty today fulfilled their archaic function of leading from the front.
i mean, what else is there for a royal to do?
if he did business, ppl would say he'd be using his status for business advantages.

[King Edward III]

Democracy > hereditary autocrats

Democracy + Monarchy = Win?

[Earl of Rochester]

The King of Thailand certainly is not obsolete.

[King Edward III]

The King of Thailand certainly is not obsolete.

Or the King of Saudi Arabia.

[Exarch]

which is why, if a royal family wishes to maintain their 'divine right to rule'/mandate of heaven etc they must fulfil their part of the bargain and prove their worthiness to rule.

[King Edward III]

which is why, if a royal family wishes to maintain their 'divine right to rule'/mandate of heaven etc they must fulfil their part of the bargain and prove their worthiness to rule.

If you want them to do that, then you're going to loose democracy. Your choice.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Or the King of Saudi Arabia.

Well the saudi part is obsolete I suggest Hashemite Arabia. Also a place where Wahabism is banned.

[Farnan]

The Hashemites are the ruling dynasty of Jordan, not Saudi Arabia. If you want to get rid of the house of Saud, founded by ibn Saud, just call it Arabia.

Anyways last time I checked Prince Harry is heading to Afghanistan.

[Exarch]

If you want them to do that, then you're going to loose democracy. Your choice.

a democracy would mean we'd hafta elect who'd get to be king/queen, as nowadays in democratic countries, royals mainly serve as a PR or diplomatic rep of the ppl,

[King Edward III]

a democracy would mean we'd hafta elect who'd get to be king/queen, as nowadays in democratic countries, royals mainly serve as a PR or diplomatic rep of the ppl,

Well in the UK we have a monarchy AND democracy. We elect our leaders, in our case the prime ministers.

[RusskiSoldat]

Yes, the royalty is obsolete and useless. People keep it around because it became completely harmless and reminded them of a simpler time.

[Dodge]

hang them

Hanging? pfft...