Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 13:58:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 27, 2017 14:15:59 GMT -5
She's too good for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 14:21:26 GMT -5
Oh, I dunno. I like Harry.  |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 27, 2017 14:23:23 GMT -5
I dunno, I think "royal family" and "21st century" is an oxymoron itself. But sure, I am as excited for them as I am for any other celebrity couple. Which is to say, who is Meghan Markle again? And Harry, he's, like, the former Backstreet Boy, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 14:38:11 GMT -5
It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that Prince Charles made a disastrous marriage to a dewy virginal teenager because it was unthinkable for him to marry the divorced woman he really loved. It wasn't just the royal family who thought so.
In a generation, that now seems bizarre. Meghan's being divorced and biracial is a shrug. William and Harry both felt free to marry non-virgin commoners with ages appropriate to their own.
They've come a long way in a generation. So, for me, anyway, it's a bigger deal than your average celebrity couple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 28, 2017 6:48:46 GMT -5
As I heard it put on the internet, "a successful actress is marrying someone who lives in public housing." |
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 28, 2017 7:23:15 GMT -5
I live in a monarchy. I manage to forget that most of the time because the only function that remains for the monarch is that he gets to cut ribbons in front of tourists and say that he's happy to be in a town he's not currently in.
A president would raise the head of state function far beyond what it currently is. A Swedish president would have legitimacy of their own. A Swedish president would be able to rest on a mandate for doing political things that the Swedes possibly wouldn't like them to do.
So, even an instinctive republican (and I mean Swedish republican who wants to get rid of the monarchy, and not the US thing) isn't too bothered about the monarchy. It kind of works, and a republic would possibly be more expensive to operate than the monarchy. The monarchy actually does bring in some money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 7:31:05 GMT -5
It has always seemed a harmless enough thing as it is currently done in the remaining European countries that have one. Indeed, it may have a use, even beyond bringing in some money. If the country is politically divided, they often seem to be relatively united in having some affection for their royal family, which could be a good thing in times of war or adversity.
I increasingly want to be European. Does it show?
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 28, 2017 7:36:41 GMT -5
It has always seemed a harmless enough thing as it is currently done in the remaining European countries that have one. Indeed, it may have a use, even beyond bringing in some money. If the country is politically divided, they often seem to be relatively united in having some affection for their royal family, which could be a good thing in times of war or adversity. I increasingly want to be European. Does it show? 'Murica, love it or leave it!  Personally, I find the whole concept appallingly un-egalitarian. Wanna talk "privileged class?" Royal families are the purest example of political privilege out there. |
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 28, 2017 7:44:15 GMT -5
I actually think that the British monarchy passes a red line, in that the monarch there has political power. Each bill required "royal assent", and the monarch can stop legislation through a refusal to give the royal consent. It's not done now, but it could be done. If I were British I'd work to change that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 7:45:53 GMT -5
'Murica -- I don't love it. And I fear it will get much worse.
ETA:
Sorry for the grim tone. I am becoming increasingly discouraged and disgusted with the direction our country is headed. It was a nice idea, but I'm not sure we're up to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 28, 2017 7:46:42 GMT -5
It wasn't that long ago when the British queen could dissolve parliament, too. Luckily that was corrected, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 28, 2017 7:48:27 GMT -5
There's another reason to retain the monarchy in Sweden, thought. Here a presidency would most likely be rewarded to some old crony who the public is glad to see the back of as they retired. It would become a reward for "long and faithful service" to some party or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 28, 2017 7:54:06 GMT -5
Monarchy a "harmless thing"? Are we tossing 5000+ years of history out the window now?
Sure, many current European monarchies may be harmless now, but that didn't happen overnight. They evolved (or devolved) into what they are now.
I guess I'm with Don 100% here. Monarchies are the epitome of actual privilege and is long as they exist, true equality is functionally impossible. Thus, I find the ooing and ahing over the personal lives of the British monarchy to be particularly annoying, even worse than the ooing and ahing here over the lives of movie stars. The members of the British monarchy are pretty much reality tv stars, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 28, 2017 7:57:02 GMT -5
Monarchy a "harmless thing"? Are we tossing 5000+ years of history out the window now? Sure, many current European monarchies may be harmless now, but that didn't happen overnight. They evolved (or devolved) into what they are now. I guess I'm with Don 100% here. Monarchies are the epitome of actual privilege and is long as they exist, true equality is functionally impossible. Thus, I find the ooing and ahing over the personal lives of the British monarchy to be particularly annoying, even worse than the ooing and ahing here over the lives of movie stars. The members of the British monarchy are pretty much reality tv stars, anyway. What would Hobbes say about this? |
|
