3 ms·

There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have o

There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.

foobarian 4y ago
To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
- metadat 4y ago
  Huh? Who "has their music"? Why censor? If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
  - ksaj 4y ago
    It's a line by Joe Pesci in the movie The Good Shepherd. Not that it justifies anything.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  I would think that the French have better food
ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere. Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  > In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public. This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
I am entertained that your complaint is about the media instead of the ridiculousness of the UK having a royal family in 2022. Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.
- illiac786 4y ago
  Because you do not understand it does not mean you can call it “ridiculous”. It’s insulting to brits who have been very attached to their queen for decades (and maybe before that as well). Lots of people do not understand it, that’s ok, and you can say as much.
  - 93po 4y ago
    Calling patriotism ridiculous is insulting to Trump supporters. Doesn't mean we don't have the right to express that opinion.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    So, Stockholm syndrome?

foobarian 4y ago

To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.

metadat 4y ago
Huh? Who "has their music"? Why censor? If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
- ksaj 4y ago
  It's a line by Joe Pesci in the movie The Good Shepherd. Not that it justifies anything.
cuteboy19 4y ago
I would think that the French have better food

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere. Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.

yencabulator 4y ago
> In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public. This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

I am entertained that your complaint is about the media instead of the ridiculousness of the UK having a royal family in 2022. Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.

illiac786 4y ago
Because you do not understand it does not mean you can call it “ridiculous”. It’s insulting to brits who have been very attached to their queen for decades (and maybe before that as well). Lots of people do not understand it, that’s ok, and you can say as much.
- 93po 4y ago
  Calling patriotism ridiculous is insulting to Trump supporters. Doesn't mean we don't have the right to express that opinion.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  So, Stockholm syndrome?