When do Irish receive Reparations Royalties?

Some of the girls at work that follow the royals closely were beside themselves yesterday. One girl shut her computer down and had to go sit outside to process it.

When I was asked, my reply was "I have 1,776 reasons not to care."

The Irish should be damn glad the English were kind enough to civilize them.

F them both.

Sadly, it is a natural tendency for tribal people (and humans are) to respect a hierarchy and its titular 'head'.

The Republic can get them from the EU, since they don't even want to be Irish anymore.

Insert a celebrity's name for Elizabeth.
The US has an idol worship complex.
I don't think Queen Elizabeth is so much seen as a monarch in the US but a celebrity that their other idols have expressed their grief.

They are kinda like relatives.

Also the Queen did more for her country than Biden did for ours. Her service during WW2 and the Blitz was pretty fascinating. She had my respect for that.

As far as royalty I don't give a fuck about that.

Its more of the passing of one of the "greatest generation"

"Myriad of others."

British royalty is kings, queens and castles. American royalty is Kardashians, Jenners and reality TV.

It's the pomp and pageantry, not the people.

It's like when a Pope dies. It's the Vatican and ceremony and hand made coffins. I'm LCMS. We have St. Louis.

I can watch it on TV, Appreciate what it represents. Doesn't mean I'm gonna convert.

Yeah the US reaction is kind of weird to me. I’m sorry for her family, as I would be for anyone that looses a loved but I quit worrying about the monarch 245 years ago.

This, wtf is wrong with people here?? Seriously

'Same as any Trump/Biden rally eh?

So...some here equating the American Revoltion to a simple school yard fight where the involved parties become besties afterwards?

Fuck that.  Flags at full staff until Sunday. Patriots Day.

Oh no, Sorry for your loss. Anyways....

This

If your friends Grandmother passes away, it’s okay to feel sorry for them, even if it wasn’t your Grandmother.

Jesus, so edgy. Such an original take. “Not muh Queen!”

It’s okay to be empathetic. It’s the end of an era. If people are nostalgic, that’s okay. It doesn’t mean they want a King or Queen for themselves, you or America.

Mournings of Heads of State is a thing, especially one that sat for 70 years.

I think it says more about the people who are bothered by other peoples reactions more then those who may share grief with an entire nation.

Constitutional Republic > monarchy > democracy.  

Rest in Peace, and condolences to those who give a care.

Loki explained it nicely.

Monarchs allowing parliments became a trend in the later 1800's, but most monarchs still maintained veto power, until there was too much pressure from their own wealthy supporters and they were forced to step down as heads of state. In our government, we cut to the chase and gave veto power to a single person who was also elected. Kind of a halfway point. It worked pretty well for a while

Nobody likes "being ruled" but (most) everyone enjoys living in a civil and just society.

Feeling bad for an ally losing their monarch does not necessarily mean that a US citizen wants to bend the knee to a monarch.

Stop projecting.

That’s my take on it also.

Unfortunately, it is a long held theory of mine that a huge percentage of the human race is hard wired (possibly even genetically) to always be “followers” who WANT to be led.

It has led to some very unfortunate things in history, and America is by no means immune to it.

Another excellent point.  It is largely a behavior in women.

Nero, Caligula, Genghis, Mao, Vladimir, Adolph and AOC agree with you. It's so much easier to get things done when no one can tell you no.

ETA: Duped.

We elect a monarch every four years already who has orders of power more than the British monarchy.  And we behave like fucking animals.

We should have an aristocracy and a Head of State who is above the fray of the mud and muck of politics.  

Is there Grief?    Where are you getting this?     At least post a link or something?


Psychologically, people have a need to feel they are part of something greater than themselves.    Somehow, the idea of Royalty is in our blood.   Look at all the guys that worship Putin?     Or Sports figures or Actors?    Or Trump for that matter.     People need a center. They need a savior.      Even religions always have a King of Kings.

If there is, I haven't seen it.

After I read it here yesterday,  my wife texted the queen died. I said yeah, she was 96.
Daughter said wow. Other daughter didn't reply to group text.

No one at work even mentioned it that I can recall.

However I'm not sure why the OP cares or makes an effort to process his feelings towards someone else's feelings on a matter.

exactly Im not sure where OP is getting his info, (curiously he hasnt shown back up here).. But im not seeing anything remotely like he is saying in the general public.  OP watching MSM or someshit? .. But yea its strange he is triggered by an outpouring of empathy to an allie's Monarch.  Maybe he is on the GD train of thinking its edgy and cool to be apart of the "iM aGaInSt tHe cUrReNt tHiNg!!'  kick.

Monarchy is not merely about subservience; hardly.  There is much more to it than that, especially in the manner it developed in the Western world.  Some of the very concepts underlying the Founding view of government (and the conservative one, generally) derive from the feudal relationship between the Lord and vassal, which is also at the heart of the Western concept of monarchy, especially in constitutional systems (before monarchs began to be stripped of their powers by law or in practice).  The Lord is not just a master, but also a servant.  Each party provides something in exchange for something else; there is mutual obligation, which is also true of the proper relationship between the citizen and his government.  Like all human institutions, it is capable of being abused or corrupted (man is a fallen creature).

It also should be noted that the independence movement was not originally about eliminating the monarchy.  Heck, the main gripes involved Parliament, but the King enforced the will of Parliament much like the President enforces the will of Congress (and indeed, the American Presidency is but an elective monarchy with a time limit, sans regal titles, with powers modeled to a large extent off of those of King George III), and there was the idea that he had a duty to protect his American subjects from Parliamentary abuse and that he failed to do so, which is what justified severing the bonds between Americans and the King (which is an idea that went back a long time; if the Lord failed to fulfill his duties to his vassals, their obedience was no longer an obligation).  Some of the Founders remained open or closet monarchists afterwards and monarchist sentiment did not die out in the U.S. entirely until their generations were largely gone.  There is a reason why Franklin was supposed to have been asked whether the Constitutional Convention gave us a monarchy or a republic, and indeed, some American officials had made overtures to European royals to potentially be King of the United States (President Gorham and Baron von Steuben were both involved in these efforts, including overtures to Prince Henry of Prussia and members of the House of Orange).

When structured correctly, it is not a bad form of government at all.  It can take the form of the regimen mixtum, which can have either a regal or republican head of state.  It has benefits, although certainly it has downsides as well, like all things, whether we speak of a hereditary or an elective monarchy.  The same is true with a more republican system.  Either model is, of course, vastly superior to a democracy, representative or direct, especially any form of mass democracy (rule of the masses has proven to be a terrible thing, which political philosophers and theorists predicted would be the case, including Locke).  Britain's government isn't really a monarchy in much more than a superficial sense in practice; it has devolved into a representative democracy, where the will of the representatives of the masses is barely checked at all and where there is a lack of separation of powers between the executive and legislature.  It is very different from what it was at the time of the Founding, when it had a structure more like the government we got in our then-new Constitution, which shouldn't be surprising since it was used as a model for our own government.

As to why so many Americans find it fascinating?  I'm not entirely sure, but there are people who enjoy what they perceive to be glamorous, dramatic, old and traditional (a connection to a long past), etc., and despite what anyone may say, men are not equal in reality and many do not wish to be so or be at the bottom, and royalty and nobility are the opposite of this in a very prominent way.  Whatever the reason, I haven't seen any reason to believe that there is any real harm in the fascination on the part of those Americans who hold it.  I do find it odd how deeply it offends some folks, though.  Now, the reason why the British monarchy specifically holds the most fascination should be obvious, as the British are our older cousins with whom we share language, culture, history, laws, traditions, origins, etc.

The British Empire collapsed and ceased to exist as such under her reign.  Sad.  The world was better off under the rule of Western powers, IMO.

All I have to do to remind myself of the folly and inferiority of democracy and universal suffrage is to look at any Ukraine thread here other than the main one, knowing that most of the posters can vote and that their votes carry equal weight.

There are some exceptions to that in the West, still, but they are unusual now.  Not a good trend, IMO.  Constitutionally, the British monarch still holds a considerable amount of formal power, it just goes virtually unused and has since perhaps as far back as King George III.  QEII did, however, threaten to use here power as commandress in chief to order the military to stand down if ordered by Parliament to put down UDI in Rhodesia, as she did not wish that to be done to the settlers there, and it got Parliament to back down from authorizing use of force against Rhodesia.  A rare moment.  Any power wielded otherwise would mostly involve suasion behind the scenes, I'd imagine, i.e. influence.

Another problem is that many constitutions allow the legislature to strip powers from the monarch.  The Grand Duke of Luxembourg several years ago vetoed a bill legalizing abortion for reasons familiar to any conservative or pro-lifer.  He had an absolute veto (the British King still has such a power, constitutionally, although it hasn't been exercised in around 300 years, IIRC, with KGIII being the last to threaten it to kill a bill, I believe).  The legislature then voted to strip the Grand Duke of his powers, including the veto.  They then passed the abortion legalization bill again and it became law.

10,000 years of kings and queens. From the burning sands of Egypt to Ancient China. People who had absolute rule over your life and could order your death with just a glance.

At some point I think it’s genetic for certain groups of people to look towards the strong man.

Monarchs throughout history often had less power than the typical democratic legislature today.  Their rule could be harsh and absolute at times, but at least it was not totalitarian like modern rule often is (even if it often is a mild totalitarianism).  Modern democracies deign to rule over every aspect of everyone's lives.  Not even the most powerful monarchs did so.

Hierarchy and the like I think are just part of human nature, as is the division of humanity into the mass and the nobility (in the natural sense, not the institutional one) and the commonality of the former and the latter being the minority, which tends to result in larger groups looking up to individuals or small numbers of people.  There is a reason why these sorts of institutions were once so common and lasted for so long.  Today's age is defined by contumacy against the laws of nature.

Attached File


Attached File

Democracy is cancer, deep down most Yanks know that.

God gave His chosen people judges...they were dissatisfied and demanded a king like the gentile-pagan people had...so He gave them kings.
It was punishment for their disobedience and lack of faith in Him.

Wiki
The House of Windsor is the reigning royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. In 1901, a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (itself a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy with the accession of King Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor because of anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during the First World War.[1] There have been five British monarchs of the House of Windsor since then: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III.

The current head of the house is monarch of fifteen sovereign states. These are the United Kingdom (where they are based), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. As well as these separate monarchies, there are also three Crown dependencies, fourteen British Overseas Territories and two small associated states of New Zealand: the Cook Islands and Niue.

I love how you self righteously quote-all men are created equally etc- while ignoring the fact these words did not apply and were not meant to apply to a majority of Americans. it's no less hypocritical than a love of the royalty.

Most of the Founding Fathers certainly knew that, many not being shy about expressing it.

There's a good book from your country on this issue, The Myth of Democracy by Tage Lindbom.

I think several in GD are confusing a strong distaste for the outpouring of respect as somewhat leftist when in fact, it is a distaste for the monarchy. That should be American to express an opinion against royalty. I sure as hell don’t want one tax dollar going to so called royalty. I always hate when the White House or government abc groups throw lavish parties on our tax dollar. Some are defending her as a war veteran, may be the same type that defend John McCain as a war hero. Others admire her service, but she was paid and protected and given most everything she wanted, certainly not service by any means.

The number of ARFcommers on the Spectrum is increasing rapidly.

Thanks for the tip.

Being the Queen

The late queen made several visits to Virginia over the course of her reign. It may surprise some that she had colonial Virginian ancestry through her mother. pic.twitter.com/Fp2DEbmRiX

Aedanus Burke  (@aedanusburke) September 9, 2022

Wearing of a certain type or color of a uniform does not
in and of itself make you a person of quality, nor does
service during a time of conflict.  

It always sort of amazed me and still does that Britons are ok
with their taxes going to support the royal family.  

At the same time I'm not going to waste my time or my energy
being all edgy about some old lady who died.

Uh huh.

I don't consider what I said edgy.  

I just don't particularly care and it doesn't impact my life at all.