311–320 of 553 posts
99 years of tax subsidies, he surely had a good life without many regrets. It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive
Because a lot of people get enjoyment from it (e.g. my mum), and removing it wouldn't save much money.
Simple reasons that this is an excellent idea:
1. Maintain tourist interest, as necro-monarchy is more interesting than monarchy.
2. Reduce ongoing operational costs.
3. Avoid expensive re-printing of money and any state funeral for Elizabeth (who is, clearly, going to be alive and well for all time)
4. Sidesteps any need for a formal declaration of republic, or dispute with royalists (who hopefully wouldn't be so foolish to disparage the health of the queen, who is alive and well).
If he does get re-incarnated, let's hope he doesn't get his wish to 'return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.'
Isn't it funny that every single person who laments overpopulation never considers themselves to be a part of the problem, and thus, this is why they aren't committing suicide in droves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this mean?
The Forth Bridge is a very long bridge that is permanently being painted. "Like painting the Forth Bridge" is a job that (feels like it) will never end. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+like+painting+the+Fo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is such a thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and there is not-medicine. Just like there is treatment and there is not-treatment. Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.
Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.
I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spending his life serving the country. More like spending his life having the country serve him.
It cuts both ways. The life of a British Royal is better than almost anyone else's. At the same time, they don't really have a lot of freedom in the usual sense - a lot of ceremonies, formal parties, events etc. You might have a better life as an retired, anonymous millionaire with some US$5M in the bank (which would also make you extremely privileged).
It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of people get enjoyment from it (e.g. my mum), and removing it wouldn't save much money.
It perpetuates the idea that you cannot rise beyond the class you're born into; indeed also that class still exists and still commands respect.
"That was when I got infected. That was when I thought: "I don't want this life: I want that one. Once I'd found a guitar to play I found a friend to help me get there," he told the Guardian.
Quoting from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10306480/Stin...
99 years of tax subsidies, he surely had a good life without many regrets. It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course. If you’re looking for someone to blame, Churchill deserves…
>I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. Heres the opening for Patrick Freyne in the Irish Times on the British Monarchy: "Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news storie…
Exactly this. The institution of the monarchy is why the family is to blame.
They aren't to blame simply for who they are descended from, but they are to blame for choosing to continue to participate in the monarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this mean?
All members of the Royal family have Bridge names or landmarks in the UK as their codenames for their death. QE is - Operation London Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_London_Bridge