• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So, the British Royal Family...

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Turns out they're a bit racist, which is surprising to a lot of people despite the obvious fact that they have always been blatantly racist.

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

To be fair, they're all super old. Which is an argument against being racist, apparently. I don't really know how it works. Someone on Twitter defended Prince Philip's history of racism by saying he was "from another generation", and I assume that just meant everything he said was either funny or not really racist at all, really, because racism isn't racism if it's done by people who didn't know any better despite their elite education and decades of being at the very forefront of diplomatic relations with countless other nationalities and the fact that they are supposed to be considered the honored representatives of a country made of many different races.

Anyway, I'm rambling because I'm mad and also confused and also mad. See, the fact that the Royal family are racist isn't really news to anyone. They've always been a racist, entitled, ignorant, parasitic postule on this country that have never had a right to exist.

So, I suppose what I really want to ask is "why do we still have a Royal family"? Additional question: when are we going to get rid of them?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Why we have them, their ancestors had the biggest swords. When we get rid, when the right wing sycophants, stop being right wing sycophants.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Shock Horror - family that spoke such phrases as "Slitty eyes" about the chinese - not a surprise
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Why we have them, their ancestors had the biggest swords. When we get rid, when the right wing sycophants, stop being right wing sycophants.
Till recently I'd couldn't see it ending, but now I'm wondering when Madge shuffles off what will happen. You know, Charles, Andrew, Harry....
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
“The Royal Family are racist.”

“Why do we still have a Royal Family.”

Those seem like two very different issues.
 
Turns out they're a bit racist, which is surprising to a lot of people despite the obvious fact that they have always been blatantly racist.

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

To be fair, they're all super old. Which is an argument against being racist, apparently. I don't really know how it works. Someone on Twitter defended Prince Philip's history of racism by saying he was "from another generation", and I assume that just meant everything he said was either funny or not really racist at all, really, because racism isn't racism if it's done by people who didn't know any better despite their elite education and decades of being at the very forefront of diplomatic relations with countless other nationalities and the fact that they are supposed to be considered the honored representatives of a country made of many different races.

Anyway, I'm rambling because I'm mad and also confused and also mad. See, the fact that the Royal family are racist isn't really news to anyone. They've always been a racist, entitled, ignorant, parasitic postule on this country that have never had a right to exist.

So, I suppose what I really want to ask is "why do we still have a Royal family"? Additional question: when are we going to get rid of them?

Article says nothing about the royal family, just what a member of staff said.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Turns out they're a bit racist, which is surprising to a lot of people despite the obvious fact that they have always been blatantly racist.

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

To be fair, they're all super old. Which is an argument against being racist, apparently. I don't really know how it works. Someone on Twitter defended Prince Philip's history of racism by saying he was "from another generation", and I assume that just meant everything he said was either funny or not really racist at all, really, because racism isn't racism if it's done by people who didn't know any better despite their elite education and decades of being at the very forefront of diplomatic relations with countless other nationalities and the fact that they are supposed to be considered the honored representatives of a country made of many different races.

Anyway, I'm rambling because I'm mad and also confused and also mad. See, the fact that the Royal family are racist isn't really news to anyone. They've always been a racist, entitled, ignorant, parasitic postule on this country that have never had a right to exist.

So, I suppose what I really want to ask is "why do we still have a Royal family"? Additional question: when are we going to get rid of them?
This looks like rather a non-story to me. Don't forget it is about the 1960s, i.e. 60 years ago, when racial prejudice was still very widespread in Britain, there were relatively few members of racial minorities in the country compared to now, and there were no laws yet to curtail it. Furthermore it is about the practice of the court, rather than direct evidence of racism on the part of the monarch.

People change as the times move on. I was fairly anti-homosexual in the 1970s. Now, I'm relaxed about it, because society's norms have shifted and my views have moved with them. It's an easy game to rake over the past and find things that shock by today's standards.

As for getting rid of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
.

As for getting rd of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?

At least they would be elected. Kind of the in thing about democracy as opposed to serfdom
 
People change as the times move on. I was fairly anti-homosexual in the 1970s. Now, I'm relaxed about it, because society's norms have shifted and my views have moved with them. It's an easy game to rake over the past and find things that shock by today's standards.

Millennia of studying ethics moral philosophy and no one worked out the greatest path to virtue and moral superiority was simply to have the strength of character to be born in a chronologically later period :D

As for getting rd of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?

Most of the same people advocating this will be the same people who have spent a large proportion of the past few years bemoaning the fact that the electorate voted for Brexit and Johnson and stating how much this makes them feel ashamed and appalled :oops:
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
As for getting rid of the Royal Family, you do realise that would mean having an elected president instead, do you? Are you sure that would be an improvement? Why?

Out of curiosity, why would they need a president? Couldn't they just have the prime minister and parliament (just as they do now) sans the royal family?
 
Out of curiosity, why would they need a president? Couldn't they just have the prime minister and parliament (just as they do now) sans the royal family?

PM is not head of state and can be replaced as leader of government very easily.

As such it isn't very viable for ceremonial and diplomatic reasons given it can change at the drop of a hat.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Out of curiosity, why would they need a president? Couldn't they just have the prime minister and parliament (just as they do now) sans the royal family?
Who would be the Head of State? Bozo?

You think that would be better than Elizabeth? :confused:
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
PM is not head of state and can be replaced as leader of government very easily.

As such it isn't very viable for ceremonial and diplomatic reasons given it can change at the drop of a hat.

So, the prime minister isn't analogous to a president? If that's the case, why would they need a prime minister at all? We have congressional elections every two years, and presidential elections every four years. It's worked well for us for over 200 years.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
So, the prime minister isn't analogous to a president? If that's the case, why would they need a prime minister at all? We have congressional elections every two years, and presidential elections every four years. It's worked well for us for over 200 years.
It hasn't, actually. We seem to be witnessing the failure of the US constitutional arrangements. Your senate can barely pass any laws because of the need for a supermajority, your president is so powerful he or she can turn the judiciary, not to mention government agencies, into partisan tools and your political system is so dependent on the power of money that it can be, and has been, bought by moneyed interests.

The UK has its own constitutional problems but the absolute last thing we should want is to copy the USA.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It hasn't, actually. We seem to be witnessing the failure of the US constitutional arrangements. Your senate can barely pass any laws because of the need for a supermajority, your president is so powerful he or she can turn the judiciary, not to mention government agencies, into partisan tools and your political system is so dependent on the power of money that it can be, and has been, bought by moneyed interests.

The UK has its own constitutional problems but the absolute last thing we should want is to copy the USA.

My impression is that monied interests control politics in nearly every country, so I don't see that as a criticism unique to the USA. I can tell that the UK is very class-oriented and money is just as powerful there as it is anywhere else.

Your other criticisms of the US government are well-taken, although historically, the basic system has worked adequately without the need for a monarch or royals to provide stability or guidance to the hapless peasants in the lower classes. Of course, no system is perfect, though some might argue that the limitations on the Senate to pass laws would be a virtue more than a flaw.

Originally, the president's powers were designed to be more limited. The power of government itself was also limited, as the original intention was to place more power in the hands of state governments. Our system of checks and balances was designed so that no single individual or faction could gain total control over the entire government.

Another safeguard was to advocate neutrality and refrain from any permanent alliances, as that can also adversely affect the function of a government and further complicate things. That was America's primary failure, in not keeping true to that principle. To be sure, Americans were led to believe there was a lot of instability in the world and that we felt compelled to take action in the belief that our country was in physical, mortal danger. That's why the government became bigger, the military grew, and the president was given greater powers so as to become the "imperial president" and the "leader of the free world."
 
Top