Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

  1. #16
    All day, all night Hollywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

    The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!
    The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

    You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

    Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

  2. #17
    the good fight ☆ Frühling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    9,163
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    95
    Follow Frühling On Twitter Add Frühling on Facebook
    Follow Frühling on Tumblr

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Congratulations for them, then! I mean, nah, I'm not a huge fan of the monarchy, but there's still a new baby that's been brought into the world by a loving couple and I think that's a pleasant thing and not something everyone should be really, really upset about. :c I mean, it's fine to not like the royal family or not like the idea of a child being born wealthy and famous, but... at least acknowledge that this child has literally done nothing but been born into an extremely wealthy family. It isn't the spawn of Satan, seriously. Besides, as Jolene said, wouldn't you prefer this pleasant news to the depressing news we get all the time? I think it's nice to know at least something nice is still happening in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!
    Er, you are familiar with what France did to eradicate their monarchy, right...?

  3. #18
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

    The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!
    The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

    You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

    Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
    So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

    As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
    If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

    Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.

  4. #19
    All day, all night Hollywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

    The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!
    The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

    You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

    Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
    So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

    As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
    If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

    Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.
    Anybody who uses that argument makes me laugh. Politics rule number 1: The Royal family have no REAL power.
    All power is by convention and the Royal Family don't act or use any of their power as essentially "they're above politics".

    The economic argument of yours is also flawed. If something is making quite a big profit than it's hard to see why it isn't a success. Also comparing us to countries VASTLY different, who with other circumstances, are in a different position is quite a hard sell.

    There are loads of arguments for and I don't mind if you want, you can carry this on my wall, but this is more political ideologies and I'd rather keep this on the celebration of another new life being brought in this world, something people shouldn't really be mocking.

  5. #20
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

    The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!
    The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

    You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

    Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
    So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

    As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
    If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

    Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.
    Anybody who uses that argument makes me laugh. Politics rule number 1: The Royal family have no REAL power.
    All power is by convention and the Royal Family don't act or use any of their power as essentially "they're above politics".

    The economic argument of yours is also flawed. If something is making quite a big profit than it's hard to see why it isn't a success. Also comparing us to countries VASTLY different, who with other circumstances, are in a different position is quite a hard sell.

    There are loads of arguments for and I don't mind if you want, you can carry this on my wall, but this is more political ideologies and I'd rather keep this on the celebration of another new life being brought in this world, something people shouldn't really be mocking.
    Who was mocking???

    I said myself they have little power, but the fact they have any power by birth is inherently corrupt and unfair.
    Your Head Of State is meant to be the representative of your country. I think that should be an honour given to you by public consent, not by birthright.

    I think your logic is the flawed one, apparently something is ok if it makes us money, doesn't matter how morally reprehensible it is, if it makes a profit then fine. Plus you classified them as economically essential which is hyperbole at it's finest. I don't think a few thousand/million in tourist revenues missing would cause economic collapse, as outlined above, we could boost tourism by inviting tourists in to the palaces and castles.

    And I don't see why the birth of this child should be treated any differently to the birth of any other child. We should all be equal that is a fundamental principle.
    Last edited by Genwunner; 25th July 2013 at 02:29 PM.

  6. #21
    Surrender now or carry on Bikini Miltank's Avatar Bulbanews Editor-in-Chief
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    SL, UT
    Posts
    2,582
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    29

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Naarghul View Post
    My gripe is that this is a big story - but it's a big story for Britain. Why should the U.S. really care beyond diplomatically acknowledging it? The reason we are a country is because we got away from having to deal with the British monarchy.
    Because a lot of Americans are interested? News corporations give the public what it wants, especially in the case of fluff pieces like these. And people (not everyone, but a significant number) do want it. As a UK citizen living in the US, people ask me about the royal family all the bloody time. It probably helps that they're basically free entertainment since they're paid for by somebody else, they get to ignore them when somebody isn't getting married or reproducing, and can selectively pay attention to the popular ones without acknowledging the crappy ones, like Charles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver?
    I'm no fan of the monarchy but this is a bad argument. Democratically, we lose nothing as a result of the monarchy because the monarchy has no power in determining anything. They get no say in the passing of laws; they're there to rubber stamp things and their participation is a formality. The fact that they arrived at this lofty (if impotent) station through no effort of their own is irritating, yes, but it doesn't make the actual business of governance any less democratic.

  7. #22
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikini Miltank View Post
    Because a lot of Americans are interested? News corporations give the public what it wants, especially in the case of fluff pieces like these. And people (not everyone, but a significant number) do want it. As a UK citizen living in the US, people ask me about the royal family all the bloody time. It probably helps that they're basically free entertainment since they're paid for by somebody else, they get to ignore them when somebody isn't getting married or reproducing, and can selectively pay attention to the popular ones without acknowledging the crappy ones, like Charles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genwunner View Post
    So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver?
    I'm no fan of the monarchy but this is a bad argument. Democratically, we lose nothing as a result of the monarchy because the monarchy has no power in determining anything. They get no say in the passing of laws; they're there to rubber stamp things and their participation is a formality. The fact that they arrived at this lofty (if impotent) station through no effort of their own is irritating, yes, but it doesn't make the actual business of governance any less democratic.
    Actually it does, many countries have a vital check and balance on the government's power by enabling a Head of State to veto bad laws. The UK has no such protection as while our monarch does hold such authority, the convention is she never uses it. Furthermore, in the result of a hung parliament, she can play a role in the choosing of the Prime Minister if no majority emerges, I'm uncomfortable with someone unelected and closely tied to aristocracy having the power. Even if she never uses it, the fact she has it is wrong.

    Here's 2 articles you may be interested in revealing just how much influence the royals actually do have.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
    http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2012/12/queen-and-prince-charles-must-be-consulted-before-laws-are-passed/

  8. #23
    Secret Sword of Justice Kelleo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Add Kelleo on Facebook
    Visit Kelleo's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Okay, I originally wasn't going to post in this thread because I never gave a damn at all about any British celebrities, but I saw the stupidest thing on the cover of one of the magazines at work, that was related to this story.

    A nude photo of Kate while she was still pregnant. NUDE PHOTO. Yes, on the fucking magazine COVER. It wasn't a large picture and Kate was covering her breasts, but still. This is bullshit. Are there really people that want to see crap like this? Posting about some duke and duchess and their new kid all over the place is one thing, but putting pictures of said duchess NAKED is just crossing the line. Not only am I sure that many parents don't want their kids to see this and that others find it disgusting, but I'm ALSO sure Kate will find this horribly embarrassing once she sees/finds out about it. I'm no fan of the British in general, but not even Kate deserves this shit. And I'm pretty sure she won't like it because the last time such explicit photos of her got out, she and Will were pretty pissed. If Kate actually wanted this, on the other hand, then she's the disgusting one.

    Also, btw, I find this baby to be ugly as hell. Its name is ugly too. But hey, an ugly name is fitting for such an ugly kid. I'm aware that newborns rarely look cute at all, but this one is just the ugliest I've ever seen.

  9. #24
    追放されたバカ Spyspotter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Zero Isle South
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    12
    Add Spyspotter on MySpace

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Wait, there's gonna be another King George? Everyone in America, prepare for the Redcoats to invade!

  10. #25
    King of the Puppy Mill. Axe to Fall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default Re: Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

    Why do these human beings even matter to society? They do not help anyone in their country. They're simply figureheads. But at any rate, i'm glad to hear that baby is alright.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •