Jump to content

House of Windsor

ErasOmnius
 Share

Recommended Posts

athanasios

athanasios

Posted
Posted

Well they are eating, drinking and studying in the best universities, whereas unemployed people go hungry and many are denied education. What would you expect? Not to be targeted? Not something more IMO. And I wouldn't bet that Charles and his 'Camel' are popular either. ;-)

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

I don't see how "eating, drinking and studying" is a sufficient justification for the commission of violent acts against others--but then again, from what I've been able to glean from your posts, you've made your approval of violence well-known.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Not sure athanasios if you mean the entire royal family, or just the two in the car, but one of the princes is in military and did a tour in Iraq( or Afghanistan?) before cover blown and had to leave. So not entirely leeching.

Heh, just think the amount of jobs the royals provide :P

So taxpayers fund them, but the money goes to create jobs etc. Let's not forget the entire gossip/magazine industry that relies on them. They made a killing off of Diana... (bad taste?)

EDIT:

ahh shit, on another note now lost in Wikipedia reading up on royals info.

athanasios

athanasios

Posted
Posted

I don't see how "eating, drinking and studying" is a sufficient justification for the commission of violent acts against others--but then again, from what I've been able to glean from your posts, you've made your approval of violence well-known.

You are twisting my post.

As regards violence, it should be the last resort. And be it a Christian or a Communist it is inevitable. ;-)

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
I don't see how "eating, drinking and studying" is a sufficient justification for the commission of violent acts against others...

[c=#00dd00]The British royal family are rich parasites who live off the backs of British workers, and they're even arrogant about it. Every member of that family could renounce his aristocratic title if he chose to. A few have done it. Those who choose to keep their titles and privileges are fair game, and deserve every bit of violence they get.[/c]

athanasios

athanasios

Posted
Posted

They are only 'cosmetic', just an 'attraction'. We all like fairy tales and stories about princesses and princess. We even pay money to watch such type of movies-at least the children. Paying for those wouldn't be such a burden if they accepted their role and were humble enough and thankful to their citizens. But they aren't. So they are asking for it. I agree. Interestingly ancient Sparta had two kings. But they were real KINGS, not parasites.

athanasios

athanasios

Posted
Posted

Unlike Charles, former minister of transportation K. Hatzidakis was unlucky: Beaten and narrowly escaped getting lynched by angry protesters. Once again Athens became a battlefield. Check following links for photos and videos:

http://www.newsday.g...olitiko-sustema

http://www.fimes.gr/...sylo-epeisodia/

People are suffering, and resort to violence to revenge those responsible for their deplorable condition, as justice is DEAD. That's what it means. One of the men beating him was shouting repeatedly: 'Leave me to kill' him. IMO we shouldn't analyze the phenomenon any more. The question is: Who is next?

Lord J

Lord J

Posted
Posted
As regards violence, it should be the last resort. And be it a Christian or a Communist it is inevitable. ;-)

It is always interesting to me that the two most vocal Communists on this board are also Christian.

In regards to an attack on Prince Charles, maybe they just read the book about how Prince Charles is the Antichrist? Maybe he simply paid someone to attack him just so that people would realize that he still exists....

athanasios

athanasios

Posted
Posted

It is always interesting to me that the two most vocal Communists on this board are also Christian.

Well I am not a Communist. I believe in private property. I am a Christian. Christianity has many commons with Communism.

In regards to an attack on Prince Charles, maybe they just read the book about how Prince Charles is the Antichrist?

It is a waste of time even to browse to such nonsense. Some people see the Antichrist everywhere.

ErasOmnius

ErasOmnius

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think it might be better of the House of Windsor gave up some of their holdings. Maybe they could be 'backround people' like the royalty in Scandinavia or Spain.

Isn't Prince Phillip from Greece?

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Edric: I honestly can't believe you actually believe that. Given the current status of the royal family, I really find it difficult for a reasonable person--much less an educated one--to espouse such a venomous view.

Liar: The royal family serves pretty much the same function in the UK as the Trumps do in the US; they're big dealers in real estate, and buy, sell, and manage property all the time. There's no way for them "to give up" their holdings that wouldn't be illegal for any other private citizen (government seizure without cause), and in any case, their "holdings" are in a state of flux already. The royalty factor aside, they're just like any other rich family. You hate 'em? You got no good reason, they're just rich and I'm guessing you're just not. Yeah. That's compelling.

EDIT: And, yes, Phillip is from Greece. He once said of the Soviets: "Of course I hate them--those bastards killed half my family."

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
Edric: I honestly can't believe you actually believe that. Given the current status of the royal family, I really find it difficult for a reasonable person--much less an educated one--to espouse such a venomous view.

[c=#00dd00]My language may be venomous, but I don't think the facts behind it are in any way controversial. There is no denying that the British royal family does, in fact, live off the work of other people. This is clear regardless of your ideology.[/c]

There's no way for them "to give up" their holdings that wouldn't be illegal for any other private citizen (government seizure without cause)

[c=#00dd00]Sure there is. Donation. They could donate their land holdings to the state, or to a charity organization. They choose not to do this. That makes them personally responsible for exploiting their people.

It's also possible for them to give up their aristocratic titles. Tony Benn did it, out of principle.[/c]

The royalty factor aside, they're just like any other rich family. You hate 'em? You got no good reason, they're just rich and I'm guessing you're just not. Yeah. That's compelling.

[c=#00dd00]There is plenty of reason to hate them. They're not even capitalists. They're landowners. That's worse. They can't even pretend to be performing any kind of service to society in exchange for the vast sums of money they receive in rent. They are parasites in the most literal sense of the word.[/c]

EDIT: And, yes, Phillip is from Greece. He once said of the Soviets: "Of course I hate them--those bastards killed half my family."

[c=#00dd00]Yes, that was right after his family had played a major role in unleashing Europe's greatest bloodbath to date. They sent millions of innocent people to slaughter each other and die in filthy trenches, in an orgy of nationalist insanity. Death was too lenient a sentence for the kings of Europe in the 1910s. The Tsar, the Kaiser, the Austrian Emperor, the Ottoman Sultan and their various crowned relatives in Central and Eastern Europe should have been made to fight each other to the death, just like they did to so many poor young boys. Sic semper tyrannis.[/c]

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Edric: Just when I was fully prepared to abandon this place for good...

1. The British Royals: it seems to me that your point boils down to a belief that a landowner is a parasite. I infer this because it's the only "crime" you really pin on the Royals before we get to World War One, but that's inappropriate for other reasons, and I'll address that below. Back to the issue at hand. Do you mean to say that any landowner is a parasite? If so, does an individual who gets his first job, takes out a mortgage, buys property, then pays off that mortgage become a parasite? That seems pretty far-fetched, even for you. It seems reasonable to me that you'd limit this philosophy only to those individuals that inherit property... but, (1) that seems to be a fairly fundamental right in society, and I doubt you'd find much support for its repeal in any case, and more importantly (2), at least in the United States, a tax is paid on inherited property. Your "parasites" actually compensate the rest of society for a property right they never had. Strange, no? Your position seems illogical; then again, that which produces emotional venom almost always is. Perhaps you might be right in the limited case of just "the British Royals" because of the near-certainty that ther inherited property is tax exempt. Neverthless, I do believe they may "compensate" society in some cognizeable fashion: these people are also born with positive (as in, affirmative, not optimistic) expectations and responsibilities... the opposite of everyone else, who are free to choose what to do. By way of contrast, the Royals must first choose what not to do, or, in other words, their only means of escaping a duty that (I would argue) society has imposed upon them is abdication or renunciation of title... which carry enormous consequences. A Royal might not want in this scenario, but a democratic mind is struck (albeit ironically) by the severe penality that this represents... it seems unfair to impose it in a case where an individual did not have a choice of being in the situation in the first place. It seems, furthermore, unrealistic to expect every Royal to abandon a cultural and political situation that does have extrinsic benefits to society simply because of the tax-exempt status of their real property inheritence. And again, that isn't enough to get me mad. Why does it get you mad? I need more data--as you can see, your words failed to narrow the field sufficiently, so the above paragraph covers a lot of ground. (EDIT: I think this addresses your "donation" point--in my previous post, I failed to state that I was taking about instances of "takings" or forcible seizure of property by the government... not voluntary measures. This should be a good beginning point for a discussion of voluntary surrender.)

2. World War One: "European monarchy" as a concept is almost definitely the cause of World War One, but I'll even do you one better (I'm a true gentleman), and actually concede that I think that Edward VII himself is the most culpable party for creating a political situation where a European war was highly likely or even inevitable--making your much-hated British Royals the indirect cause of World War One! I'll concede this, however, by pointing out the hilarious (but tragic) irony of your being the one to bring this issue up. The British Royals may be the indirect cause of a tragedy that slaughtered 30 million people, but it is also absolutely true that the violent and undemocratic implementation of socialism and communism in Russia and China slaughtered tens of millions in Russia and tens of millions more in China (conservative estimates being 5-10 million in Russia and 25-30 million in China? I can't be bothered to look at Wikipedia, but I don't think you're the type to quibble over numbers). However, there is a distinction to be made: this was not an indirect cause--such as the policies of a British King dead four years before World War One. These were the things these governments did consciously and consistently while fully aware of the consequences thereof. You may decry monarchy; but your chosen philosophy is at least equally culpable for world tragedy, and though you may disown these as "untrue" communists, it nevertheless seems that they were even more culpable for loss of human life when compared to those you attempt to criticize. You may be a different kind of communist (I know you are), but I assert--I think fairly--that the British Royals are a different kind of Royals. Frankly, I don't really care about either group. I'm not going to hold people accountable for the actions of their spiritual or actual predecessors long dead--but if you are, then I will gladly remind you of your Great Leaps Forward. Glass house much?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.