s/o The Anti-Monarchist thread for those who think the Royals should be Throne Out

[Ibbygirl]

Perhaps Prince Harry needs his own reality show, that would give him something to do.

 

As for the Kim woman, I think this about sums it up:

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Love this!!

[Storm Bay]

It always seems like the one who is not in line for the throne is a bit wild. . Then there was Randy Andy.

Such a disappointment, that Andy. When I turned 6 I planned to marry him and become queen. Evidently, Canadian kindergarteners weren't taught the laws of succession. All I know is that I was a bossy, eldest child & since I'm a few days older than Andrew, I figured I could be the boss as the older person always gets to be the boss (or so I thought!)

I really don't have any skin in the game, since I'm an American? I guess I don't know why people *outside of the UK* care.

People in the Commonwealth countries have mixed views & feelings on the monarchy.

 

 

I don't have much respect for Charles, but I do think that it's worth thinking about where he comes from culturally.

 

Laura

 

Exactly what I think about Charles (your entire post, Laura, but just quoting the conclusion.)

[WishboneDawn]

It is a real job, but to the Royal family it is something to keep him occupied until he starts his real job, which is waiting for his father to die. He's not going to be allowed to pilot a helicopter much longer. He's got to produce an heir and then start waiting.

 

They just can't win. The argument was that they didn't have real jobs. I point out that William has one the rebuttal is that it's not a real real job.

 

Of course it is. It's not just a real job but it's one that, as nmoira pointed out, requires a special set of skills and someone who can endure a lot of stress and be willing to work in dangerous conditions. What he might do when he's done there (because again as nmoira pointed out it's not a career that people generally stick with for decades) is yet to come and should not be used to diminish his accomplishments now.

[Negin]

People are entitled to believe whatever they want and they have the freedom of speech to declare it also, but I think it's pretty presumptuous and arrogant to tell people in another country what should be done with their royals when we already left the conversation so long ago, kwim? That's all I meant really.

:grouphug: I hope I didn't offend. :grouphug:

[Ibbygirl]

:grouphug: I hope I didn't offend. :grouphug:

 

Oh no honey! Not at all! :) :grouphug: I was just clarifying that particular post that it was in response to the initial question of the thread that's all. The conversation has since moved on from the initial post so I was just clarifying what it was in reference to. You couldn't offend if you tried. :) :grouphug::grouphug:

[Negin]

You couldn't offend if you tried. :grouphug:

:grouphug: You're so sweet. Thank you. :grouphug:

[Ibbygirl]

:grouphug: You're so sweet. Thank you. :grouphug:

:grouphug: back at ya. :)

[Negin]

Bill, have been thinking of you with all the new stuff going on. :lol:

 

I love this blog and the comments below it (for anyone who has time) are rather :smilielol5:.

 

Here's just a sample:

 

I really hope this run of naked Royal photos ends before we get to The Queen and Prince Phillip... :lol:

 

I bet Harry is pleased someone else is taking the heat for a change.

 

Will poor Catherine be sent to Afghanistan then as well?

 

Harry's bottom - Kate's bits - why don't they just do a royal calendar? :smilielol5:.

 

And this one I have to agree with.

 

If you are Princess Kate and you take your bikini-top off in a place where you can be photographed, then you are going to be photographed. This is obvious. The fact that you are at a private address doesn't change the fact that you can be seen.

 

You also know that some paparazzi will go to any lengths to take such pictures, so that even if you think you can't be seen, they will find a way round that.

 

How hard is it to understand that, in order to enjoy all the privileges of being a royal, you also have to take care to preserve the dignity of the royal family?

 

This isn't about monarchism or republicanism. It's about understanding that you are very lucky to have a great life that comes with certain constraints and responsibilities.

 

You can't be royal and enjoy the same anonymity as others. It's not possible. This means making adjustments. That may seem a bore, but it goes with the role.

[Spy Car]

Here's the thing, while I think it is unwise for a "royal" to put themselves in a position where they might be photographed nude—even in a remote location—due to the persistent invasion of privacy they should anticipate the paparazzi is going to commit, I also believe the practice of the photographers is reprehensible.

 

Prince Harry's situation was entirely different (what a dope) but Kate Middleton IMO was due her privacy.

 

I think the privacy issues would improve immeasurably if they just abolished the monarchy. It is an idea whose time has passed.

 

Bill

[Donna A.]

Here's the thing, while I think it is unwise for a "royal" to put themselves in a position where they might be photographed nude—even in a remote location—due to the persistent invasion of privacy they should anticipate the paparazzi is going to commit, I also believe the practice of the photographers is reprehensible.

 

This I agree with.

 

 

[i think the privacy issues would improve immeasurably if they just abolished the monarchy. It is an idea whose time has passed.

The thing is, monarchy has been in place in various parts of the world for thousands of years. It's not likely to go away anytime soon just because a few Americans think it should. America is quite young compared to everybody else. There's something to be said for maturity whether the young un's think they're right or not. ;)