[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

The Royal Family are good value for money. The Queen pays tax, and draws only around £9million pa from the public purse - compare that some some of the other nonsense that is funded by the public. The Royal Household is also a major employer and much of the public money they bring in goes to pay staff wages. Also - forget tourists - the Royal family do a lot of diplomatic stuff that brings in trade and therefore revenue to this country. But the most important factor is that is it can only be a good thing to have a non-political head of state.

All of those points are well made, however you completely ignore the inherent discriminatory issues with the monarchy. It is a completely UNdemocratic institution.

First of all, because the monarch is also the head of the National Church(Anglican Church) you lose any and all sense of separation of church and state, which makes the monarchy being christian an inherently islamophobic, anti-semetic, and every other word for discrimination against religion too

Second, because the monarchy does not recognize same-sex couples, it is an inherently homophobic institution. The Monarchy would not recognize 2 kings, and would not acknowledge any children whether adopted or through a serogate to be recognized as legitimate parts of the royal family.

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

It is an inherently discriminatory institution on every level. Arn't you offended by any of these points?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Third, all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline.

Phil's a Greek .....

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omah

Phil's a Greek .....

He's white enough for government work. :P and doesn't he hate the greeks? lol

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

All of those points are well made, however you completely ignore the inherent discriminatory issues with the monarchy. It is a completely UNdemocratic institution.

First of all, because the monarch is also the head of the National Church(Anglican Church) you lose any and all sense of separation of church and state, which makes the monarchy being christian an inherently islamophobic, anti-semetic, and every other word for discrimination against religion too

Second, because the monarchy does not recognize same-sex couples, it is an inherently homophobic institution. The Monarchy would not recognize 2 kings, and would not acknowledge any children whether adopted or through a serogate to be recognized as legitimate parts of the royal family.

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

It is an inherently discriminatory institution on every level. Arn't you offended by any of these points?

No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, I'm not offended by those points. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make him an anti-semite. In fact, Prince Charles has stated publically that he would prefer to be called "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of the Faith" when he becomes king to reflect the variety of religions in the country.

It's a little far-fetched to call the whole Royal Family homophobes. Give it time, I'm sure this ancient institution will catch up. They've only just granted that if William and Kate have a female child, that child will rule. I'm sure the USA would never elect a homosexual president right now. Does that make the whole of the USA homophobic?

No, there is probably no chance right now that a black child could be king or queen. In much the same way that it's unlikely that someone Christian and white will ever be King of Jordan. That doesn't make them racist.

It's not an undemocratic institution because the Royals hold no political sway. They don't make decisions about taxation, about the armed forces... about anything. That's the Government's job.

They don't exercise the power over those things, but they DO still have that power(legally). Why should you wait for a tyrant to come along to amend what obviously should be amended?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

Well, the UK is mostly white*, whereas, in the US, Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

There were 52m Hispanics in the US in 2011 - the largest minority group - followed by 43.9m African-Americans.

More than half the populations of four states - Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas - plus Washington DC - are "minorities".

As the population changes the US will see an inevitable decline in the numbers of whites in the labour force.

In the not-too-distant future, there may be no possibility for a white child to hold the highest office in the US of A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457


*White British 50,366,497 (85.67%)
*White (other) 3,096,169 (5.27%)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Third, all children will be from the same bloodline, it's also a racist institution, as all children accending to the throne will be from the same white bloodline and there is no possibility for a black child to hold the highest office in the land.

These points were all discussed at length in a thread many months back when you made the exact same statements. It seems you didn't take anything from it and have gone back to incorrectly using terms such as "racism". Perhaps educate yourself before using them. "Snobby" perhaps but not racist. Harry dated a girl from South Africa.