[user104658]

Originally Posted by DR

If we weren't following the royals, we would be following someone else... the kardashians, Katy Perry or Justin Bieber.

Would we? I wouldn't and don't... many already do... some more I'm sure would... but you can't make such sweeping inclusive statements. Not everyone worships celebrity of any type.

Originally Posted by Livia

You could say that about anyone with a few bob. Nepotism isn't confined to the royals. How many "celebrity dynasties" do we have? All hugely admired and fawned over... for acting, or singing, or something equally overvalued.

And to go on from that; yes there are many celebrity dynasties that are fawned over but that's not the question. The question is SHOULD they be. My answer is "no, never, not from my perspective." And the question isn't and was never "is nepotism confined to the Royals"... it's "does the very concept and existence of the Royals NORMALISE nepotism and make it so that we are less likely to question it". That's been my entire point all along. They make something toxic and ****ing weird seem "normal", they are the proto-celebs from before celebrities were celebrities, except that instead of even pretending to be able to act or sing, no matter how badly, they have their status for literally no reason at all. And en masse we think that's "OK because that's how it's always been, it's tradition". And I guess, because they're "pretty to look at" in all of their finery.

It's odd. Just odd. And it degrades and lessens the importance of the individual in countless seemingly minor but ultimately damaging ways.


But meh. Maybe I've given it too much thought. Maybe society isn't actually a mess and shouldn't be questioned so hard... maybe people do "need" their human deities. If the cancer runs too deep it can sometimes be impossible to cut it out without killing the host, I suppose?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would we? I wouldn't and don't... many already do... some more I'm sure would... but you can't make such sweeping inclusive statements. Not everyone worships celebrity of any type.

I didn't make a sweeping statement though. I said, though one came beneath the other but was inclusive of what I was saying...

"If we weren't following the royals, we would be following someone else... the kardashians, Katy Perry or Justin Bieber.

"I think its human nature for a lot of people to have a fundamental need to look up to and admire someone we consider honorable or flawless or admirable."

As for Princess Diana, we all knew that she was unhappy because her husband couldn't keep his dick in his pants and was fawning after Camilla.
Diana was emotionally vulnerable long before she married Charles. She admitted to being a self harmer in her teens and though perhaps she grew out of that, she reverted back to her old ways when Charles made it clear she was nothing more than a marriage of convenience. Diana wanted love and a happy ending but all she got was a loveless relationship. She was a mockingbird in a guided cage.

Kate probably does say that to William but clearly Kate and William have a strong and stable relationship.

[Alf]

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

Who told you this?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

God I hate emoticons in serious debates. Especially that bloody joker. If you're not doing well in the debate, TS, start the ridicule.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

The queen does have the right to dissolve parliament.
Regardless of the pomp and ceremony she is still the head of state. Would you prefer a president?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The queen does have the right to dissolve parliament.
Regardless of the pomp and ceremony she is still the head of state. Would you prefer a president?

NO!

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

NO!

Me neither!

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Alf

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

That's not true. Look at Saudi Arabia.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That's not true. Look at Saudi Arabia.

Actually one of the most stable of the Arab countries.

[Livia]

Not sure we can hold our monarchy and government up against Saudi Arabia as a comparison.

[Tom4784]

It doesn't bother me one way or another so I guess that would make me a yes voter by default.