The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[harvey19]

43 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Apparently, other posters believe that you can be a reasonable contributor on some subjects, I'll take their word for it, I'm sure you can be.

However, when it comes to this particular subject you appear to have a blind spot which prevents you from understanding straight forward explanations.

I, and at least one other poster on here do not accept the position of the monarchy as far as our lives are concerned. We prefer Republics ( I'm a citizen of a Republic ) that being the case we believe that all people are born equal. That means that we don't accept that anyone is above us in any intrinsic way.

People fulfil different positions and that is fine, they serve a different function but nobody is above anybody. Obviously, some people think differently, they believe that someone by right of birth ( handed down from their ancestors who gained their position by killing people ) is 'born to reign over them'.

I think they should have more self respect, but it isn't anything to do with me how others live their lives, so let them carry on regardless.

 

What I would like however is a reciprocal attitude from monarchists. You appear unwilling to extend that courtesy, insisting that everyone must accept they have their ' betters ' .  above  them

 There is no scale on human worth, only in your mind, we are all equal.

You are confused in what I have been saying,

 

It does not concern or trouble me what your view of the monarchy is or the people who embody the roles I fully accept you have aright to have these views and I would not want to change them.

I agree one human being is the equal of another.

Where we differ is that you are talking about individuals and I am talking about an institution which is graded as the Head of the Nation by law.

As it is graded as head of the nation all citizens are below it.

Your not accepting it or it's position changes nothing except in your mind.

 

An example I gave to Organgrinder was that a soldier salutes an officer. The soldier is not saluting the man but the Kings Commission.

Do you agree the Monarch is head of the nation ?

Can you have anyone above, or below the head of an organisation.?

In an organisation there can be mutual respect but there is an head who is responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation. 

 

 

 

[trastrick]

17 hours ago, m williamson said:

Revered may be the wrong word, The object of the game is to capture your opponents king, so hunted may be more apt.

Why the king, if a pawn is just as equal?

[trastrick]

15 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Harvey and I  have had many good debates and some very cordial ones too.  Unfortunately, there are some subjects he feels so strongly about, where he changes the flow of the debate

and it becomes impossible to carry on.   I can be quite relaxed about him being a staunch monarchist but never if he doesn't accept that people such as me can have our free view too. 

I have even said, in this debate,  that despite my not being a monarchist,  I don't dislike Charles,  and his continued reign doesn't bother me although I consider myself as equal to him. 

My view is,  that the royals are only there by the chance of their birth and are no better,  no wiser or no more special,  than any other ordinary person and we are all equal.

 

Nice clean up job, Orgy! 

 

Now can we all agree that those who accept that the Monarch is above the average bloke in the societal scheme of things, are not all boot lickers, servile bowers and scrapers, and even Hitlers?

 

Who's beliefs are NOT tantamount to calling for the return of slavery?

 

Discaimer: Unlike you, I DO dislike Charles.

 

(Now don't forget to take your Horlicks, before answering) 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by trastrick

[altus]

32 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

An example I gave to Organgrinder was that a soldier salutes an officer. The soldier is not saluting the man but the Kings Commission.

Do you agree the Monarch is head of the nation ?

Can you have anyone above, or below the head of an organisation.?

In an organisation there can be mutual respect but there is an head who is responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation.

Bad example. Charles isn't in charge of/responsible for anyone except perhaps the royal household - i.e. his servants. He certainly has no such role for everyone in the nation.

 

He does as he's told. The government instructs his private secretary that he is to meet such and such a foreign dignitary on such and such a date and can he not go on about his pet subjects because BAe want to sell them some weapons.

 

He might be nominally head of the armed forces but he can't command them to do anything. He certainly isn't "responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation." He's a mascot - a sort of glorified equivalent of a regimental goat.

[harvey19]

15 minutes ago, altus said:

Bad example. Charles isn't in charge of/responsible for anyone except perhaps the royal household - i.e. his servants. He certainly has no such role for everyone in the nation.

 

He does as he's told. The government instructs his private secretary that he is to meet such and such a foreign dignitary on such and such a date and can he not go on about his pet subjects because BAe want to sell them some weapons.

 

He might be nominally head of the armed forces but he can't command them to do anything. He certainly isn't "responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation." He's a mascot - a sort of glorified equivalent of a regimental goat.

It is called delegation.

Your bias is and lack of objectivity is shown by your last sentence.

[altus]

3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

It is called delegation.

What decisions does he make in the running of the armed forces then?

 

Quote

Your bias is and lack of objectivity is shown by your last sentence.

I am being objective. I was just highlighting that, like a regimental goat, his role is ceremonial.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, altus said:

Bad example. Charles isn't in charge of/responsible for anyone except perhaps the royal household - i.e. his servants. He certainly has no such role for everyone in the nation.

 

He does as he's told. The government instructs his private secretary that he is to meet such and such a foreign dignitary on such and such a date and can he not go on about his pet subjects because BAe want to sell them some weapons.

 

He might be nominally head of the armed forces but he can't command them to do anything. He certainly isn't "responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation." He's a mascot - a sort of glorified equivalent of a regimental goat.

You have summed that up very well altus   and,

on the bottom line,  you've summed it up perfectly.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Organgrinder

[m williamson]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Why the king, if a pawn is just as equal?

Because it's a game?  You know like cards, where they also have a joker.

[harvey19]

13 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Because it's a game?  You know like cards, where they also have a joker.

Isn't life a game of fate ?

26 minutes ago, altus said:

What decisions does he make in the running of the armed forces then?

 

I am being objective. I was just highlighting that, like a regimental goat, his role is ceremonial.

He awards commissionto  officers without the armed would not function.

King's regulations determine how the forces function.

What would you like him to do ? Conduct room inspections ?

[m williamson]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

You are confused in what I have been saying,

 

It does not concern or trouble me what your view of the monarchy is or the people who embody the roles I fully accept you have aright to have these views and I would not want to change them.

I agree one human being is the equal of another.

Where we differ is that you are talking about individuals and I am talking about an institution which is graded as the Head of the Nation by law.

As it is graded as head of the nation all citizens are below it.

Your not accepting it or it's position changes nothing except in your mind.

 

An example I gave to Organgrinder was that a soldier salutes an officer. The soldier is not saluting the man but the Kings Commission.

Do you agree the Monarch is head of the nation ?

Can you have anyone above, or below the head of an organisation.?

In an organisation there can ,be mutual respect but there is an head who is responsible for the well being of the staff, ensuring the organisation fulfils it's role. and abides by legislation. 

 

 

 

You agree that one person is the equal of another? In which case in terms of equality no one is above or below anyone else, agreed?

I've already stated on more than one occasion that the king is Head of State in exactly the same way as the President of a Republic is.

Michael D Higgins is currently the Head of State of a country I am a citizen of.

That makes him the first citizen,  he's the equal of all other citizens and represents them internationally but isn't above any individual one of them he simply has the honour of representing them.

Exactly the same with Charles, he represents the other country I'm a citizen of as Head of State, which I recognised and accept and wish him well in that capacity. However I do not accept him as my king, I don't have a king. It's as simple as that. 

 

If you choose to join an organisation which has a structure whether it is military or a private corporation you accept the hierarchy involved during the period it applies to.  Once you leave the arrangement is over and no one is above you in any way. 

I have never been in the military and have never given an oath of allegiance. When I worked for other companies I understood and accepted the structure because when you are in paid employment that's how it works. However, I never believed anyone was above me other than in an organisational sense.

When I owned my own company it never occurred to me to consider myself above any employee other than in an organisational sense.

 

The monarchy doesn't work like that though does it? While having no actual connection with the family or any other aristocrats people in this country are expected by some to view the monarchy as intrinsically ' better ' and superior to hoi polloi.  This despite that  same hoi polloi paying for the monarchy in its taxes.

Well, many of us don't accept it  and that percentage is growing as people become more informed and less servile.

 

I have no king, try to accept that fact and we can end this ongoing debate which isn't getting us anywhere.