The Royal Family Debate

[John]

Team Edit: Stemming off the A Royal Baby topic, this topic is here to discuss and debate anything related to the Royal Family.

---

Is there any record of them doing/saying anything racist or homophobic?

 

[Adam]

Is there any record of them doing/saying anything racist or homophobic?

Well, for starters there's Harry called a soldier in the British army a P*ki not long ago, then you've got the many racist/homophobic things Charles has said throughout the years, then you've got the way the queen treats LGBT workers at Buckingham Palace, then you've got the fact she practically doesn't even acknowledge other sexualities as existing...

 

[Tim]

And I should care some racist, homophobic toffs are having a baby because?

:

Is there any record of them doing/saying anything racist or homophobic?

Well, for starters there's Harry called a soldier in the British army a P*ki not long ago, then you've got the many racist/homophobic things Charles has said throughout the years, then you've got the way the queen treats LGBT workers at Buckingham Palace, then you've got the fact she practically doesn't even acknowledge other sexualities as existing...

I wasn't aware it was Harry and Charle's Baby! Oh the horror, what have they been up to! And a potential threesome with the Queen!

---

In all seriousness I get Meat Pie's reasons for being against the royal family but this reasoning has never stuck with me. We all have moments when we slip up and say stupid things but thankfully we don't have the press following us 24/7. Now if they'd done something serious like making racist/homophobic laws I could understand but as we aren't even taking about The Queen, Charles, or Harry I fail to see how it concerns the baby.

Plus they do have jobs you know. Despite being married for over a year last week was actually the first time they managed to visit Cambridge (the place they've been made duke and duchess of) because they hadn’t had time before now. Speaking of which It'd be weird if it was here that she became pregnant.

 

[BigDave]

Our queen may cost us millions, but she also brings in millions from tourism, various overseas visits and special occassions. Im not saying that we need a queen, but without a queen we would probably have to pay for a president or some other form of figure head to take control of our government and these would probably do half the jobs the current queen does, more than likely be no where near as popular and yet still cost us a fortune.

 

[Martin]

Dressing as a Nazi 'a little slip up we all make but get away with because the press don't follow us 24/7'.

Waving 'a serious, time consuming job'.

And no one would visit England without them.

 

[BigDave]

Jesus Christ could be argued was just a child and yet we have been celebrating his birth for how many years now? Are you celebrating Christmas this year? Thought so!

 

[Meat Pie]

I don't want to turn this into a general Pros vs. Cons of the Monarchy topic, as is why I stuck to issues pertaining to the hypocrisy of many over the funding of Children, but I have to address your points there BigDave.

Evidence actually does not suggest that the Queen/Royal Family is good for tourism. In fact, the opposite is suggested as funds acquired through giving access to previously owned royal estates has proven far more lucrative than having royals occupy them.

Second of all, there is no reason to believe that an elected president would cost the equal amount let alone more than the monarchy. The costly pomp and ceremonies would be removed, the cost of providing the extended family with a luxury lifestyle wouldn't be necessary, the pay for the president would not have to be anywhere near as ridiculously high as the current system, the cost of ridiculous levels of preparation (like resurfacing every single road the Queen travels on) for official visits/appointments wouldn't be continued.

And finally, even if a Monarchy was cheaper, it is still unethical to have an inherited head of state as it puts them above the judgement of normal people who if they deemed them inappropriate, would not have the opportunity to dethrone the current regime and vote for their own democratically elected official.

That's all I really want to go into on the issue of Monarchy here as it's slightly off topic but if you would like to debate further, I am more than willing to do so in a dedicated topic or over PMs.

 

[Martin]

Jesus Christ could be argued was just a child and yet we have been celebrating his birth for how many years now? Are you celebrating Christmas this year? Thought so!

Apart from Christmas now being a secular holiday and was around long before Jesus...

 

[gazag]

YOU ARE BRITISH AND BE PROUD OF EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY HAS AND STANDS FOR

this is all i shall say. im British and very patriotic, i would be in the army if I could and fight for queen and country. never take the monarchy for granted as its one of the best and most British things we have in the UK and its something we should all be proud to support no matter what there views, what they say or do is.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

(and yes when i hear the national anthem I do stand to attention and know every word of the long and short version and if you don't know it you should be ashamed to call yourself British)

 

[Martin]

They're the most British half-German half-Greek family in the world! HEIL!

 

[Jem8472]

So are you saying that regardless of where you were born if you grandparents were not British then you are not British?

 

[Martin]

No. I am saying that for a family held up as being thoroughly 100% British, they're not. The point of a country having a Royal Family is that the family actually all come from the country? It's just another thing wrong with the idea of royalty, that there is one family that somehow defines a country and are better than the rest of the country, as well as better than the rest of the world simply by being of that nationality.

But in our case, it doesn't really matter, as they're not even the same species or from the same planet as us anyway.

 

[Nick]

Jesus Christ could be argued was just a child and yet we have been celebrating his birth for how many years now? Are you celebrating Christmas this year? Thought so!

Apart from Christmas now being a secular holiday and was around long before Jesus...

Eh?

It's not a secular holiday at all. It's still very much completely about Jesus' birth. There is a difference between what atheists and non-Christians celebrate and what Christians celebrate.

Also, it was not around before Jesus. That's just not true at all. Otherwise, it would not be called Christmas. There may have been a Pagan festival before Jesus' birth, but that can't possibly be misinterpreted as the same thing as Christmas- they're clearly two different things.

And about the Royal Family. Firstly, you can't use the argument that they're foreigners, as, technically speaking, we are mostly made up of Vikings, Normans or Anglo-Saxons- none of which, you could suggest, are original British people (ie. the Celts).

About the Royal Family being homophobic, racist etc. I don't care. I don't even care about the Royal Family at all.

 

[Martin]

It's not a secular holiday at all. It's still very much completely about Jesus' birth. There is a difference between what atheists and non-Christians celebrate and what Christians celebrate.

Also, it was not around before Jesus. That's just not true at all. Otherwise, it would not be called Christmas. There may have been a Pagan festival before Jesus' birth, but that can't possibly be misinterpreted as the same thing as Christmas- they're clearly two different things.

And about the Royal Family. Firstly, you can't use the argument that they're foreigners, as, technically speaking, we are mostly made up of Vikings, Normans or Anglo-Saxons- none of which, you could suggest, are original British people (ie. the Celts).

About the Royal Family being homophobic, racist etc. I don't care. I don't even care about the Royal Family at all.

Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity. Just because Christianity renamed an existing festival and changed the person it's about, doesn't make it Christian. Christmas is about spending money.

They're of more recent ancestry. I'm more 'British' than they are. If the idea is to show off some silly idea of 'Britishness', then they haven't exactly got it right. Yes, of course there's no such thing as 'original' British, and I actually find it amusing the patriotic, jingoistic sort that love the royals miss how 'un-British' the supposedly 'most-British' family is.

 

[Nick]

It's not a secular holiday at all. It's still very much completely about Jesus' birth. There is a difference between what atheists and non-Christians celebrate and what Christians celebrate.

Also, it was not around before Jesus. That's just not true at all. Otherwise, it would not be called Christmas. There may have been a Pagan festival before Jesus' birth, but that can't possibly be misinterpreted as the same thing as Christmas- they're clearly two different things.

And about the Royal Family. Firstly, you can't use the argument that they're foreigners, as, technically speaking, we are mostly made up of Vikings, Normans or Anglo-Saxons- none of which, you could suggest, are original British people (ie. the Celts).

About the Royal Family being homophobic, racist etc. I don't care. I don't even care about the Royal Family at all.

Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity. Just because Christianity renamed an existing festival and changed the person it's about, doesn't make it Christian. Christmas is about spending money.

They're of more recent ancestry. I'm more 'British' than they are. If the idea is to show off some silly idea of 'Britishness', then they haven't exactly got it right. Yes, of course there's no such thing as 'original' British, and I actually find it amusing the patriotic, jingoistic sort that love the royals miss how 'un-British' the supposedly 'most-British' family is.

Christmas has absolutely everything to do with Christianity. I've got no idea what you are talking about by mentioning another festival. Christmas is not at all about spending money. That only came a long time after the idea of Christmas, and has nothing to do with Christmas itself. The actual holiday derives from the approximate date of Jesus' birth, and is a celebration of that only.

 

[Martin]

I really suggest you go research the history of Christmas. And yes, Christmas now is about money. It's the ultimate capitalist festival, a thinly veiled celebration of commercialism and spending. Have you turned on the TV lately?

Anyway, this is getting quite off topic. Back to the Reptilians!

 

[Nick]

I have researched it, and found no festivals that could have been before Jesus' birth- if you would care to elaborate on it.

Christmas, for non-Christians only, is what you have said. Although, it could be argued, that that is not the same festival as Christmas, but one that has simply evolved over time with the increasing percentage of atheists. Christmas, as I've said before, is still very much celebrated by Christians as Jesus' birth only. You clearly don't have any understanding of what is actually is, and instead, are showing clear bias against religious festivals and massive corporations.