[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.15399812 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]


>> No.15399819

She was sexy when she was younger.

>> No.15399837


>> No.15399846


And Princess Di was sexy when she was alive.
But I ain't Doc Brown, I can't drive my car through time to a sexier age.
Y'gotta deal with life as it IS, not as it was or coulda been.
Y'gotta have sex with the queen that you have, not the queen you mighta wanted.

>> No.15399860

No my friend. YOU are the power.

>directed by M. Night Shyamalan

>> No.15399877


Are these the lyrics for a new Dan Le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip Song? There aren't enough yet.

>> No.15399886

can i have sex with the princess di i have now instead?

>> No.15399908


the fascist regime!

>> No.15399920


My name is Sid and I really like your post.

Pic related, it's me and my bitch

>> No.15399939

Sure, you COULD, but she was on French soil when she died of a fatal collision.
Think of the STDs, man.

>> No.15399940

My family moved across a fucking ocean just to get away from them.
So no, let's get rid of this foolish notion of traditions. After all, royals are essentially a figurehead now. Parliament does everything, and they just live off taxpayer money across the entire BCW.
So fuck them. We can keep the Commonwealth, but get rid of the royals, please.

>> No.15399956

Except they generate billions in tourism revenue.

>> No.15399979


And earned for the nation in such a dignified way, too!
In the manner of a canival freakshow!
"Come one, come all, see the world's most ass-backwards tradition!"

>> No.15399989

The British royal family also own a great deal of land, for which they receive the rent of anybody living on it. It's a lot more than just taxpayer money. Additionally, the younger princes (William and Harry), as well as any number of relatives, all have their own jobs and careers. They don't live off the taxpayers, they earn their own way and pay taxes like anybody else.

Do you also complain about the rest of the British peerage?

It works. Tourism money (especially from countries like America, which have no royal family for obvious reasons) is a HUGE source of income, so you can bet your ass they'll capitalise on it as much as possible.

>> No.15400006

No, they don't. Their castles and palaces and shit the tourists visit earn that money. You don't have to demolish the fucking Buckingham Palace when you overthrow the Monarchy.

>> No.15400019

>mfw Parliament still needs the Queen to open the floor and that they wouldn't be able to conduct business otherwise according to the law.

Not much, but the Royals still have some de facto power in the REAL government.

>> No.15400024

I dunno I think its pretty awesome. Also tourism is pretty much one of the biggest industries in the world, so...

By the way, there was that huge wedding a while ago, I hear the money it scraped together payed back more then a billion pounds then the cost of the wedding.

I read that the royal family can in no way touch taxes and actually act as advisor to the PM, and as diplomats, while also having jobs. While also doing the above. In your country. Which you left.

>Royal family are parasites.
>So we left the country because of them, after living off a few year with welfare, insurance, jobs, etc.
>They actually bring income
>You are in the negative to your country
>Sweat of my ballsack and all that.

>> No.15400027

>de facto
You're thinking of "de jure." De facto, they are mere figureheads. De jure, they have actual power (significantly limited thanks to a variety of laws passed over the past 350 years, but nonetheless "real"). But were the queen to invoke such powers, I'm sure everyone in Britain would probably just laugh and continue on with their business.

>> No.15400028

Gentlemen, how do we restore the British monarchy to its rightful glory and destroy America once and for all?

We tried German soldiers the first time around.
It turned out all they were good for was drinking and surrendering.
Any suggestions involving bringing back the Third Reich or going back in time and allying with either the Kaiser or Hitler are immediately disqualified on that basis.

>> No.15400036

we wait for 4 people to meet in a pub and offer them a job

>> No.15400040

Just ask the 'murricans nicely. Maybe promise them the King's Speech 2.

>> No.15400052

Tell them that [Nation you don't like] has WMD's.

Repeat until the American dollar is worthless.

Then buy America for the price of a meal.

>> No.15400069

You should've said "price of a Happy Meal."

>> No.15400253


Given how much the world seems to cream their pants whenever a Royal (From any nation, really. Remember when Juan Carlos told Chavez to shut up?) goes out and does something incredibly ballsy, They probably could shut down parlaiment if there was a clear need to.

>> No.15400316


Remember when Juan Carlos completely reformed the Spanish government, eliminated Fascist authoritarianism and laid the foundation of a real democracy without shedding blood to do so?

If Juan Carlos tells you to shut up, you need to shut your goddamn whore mouth.

>> No.15400391

Americans (and possibly a chunk of the rest of the world) have a sort of fascination with royalty. It simultaneously represents the antithesis of all of our political philosophy while reminding us of all the fairy tales we heard as children.

Those two conflicting emotions - revulsion and nostalgia-induced wonderment - sort of swim around and get magnified by curiosity (since we never had royalty of our own).

Depending on who you ask in America, royalty is either a revolting symbol of tyranny or a romantic symbol of chivalry. Love it or hate it, though, a lot of us can't help but be fascinated with it.

>> No.15400425


Personally, I think the fascination we have with royalty here in America stems from a combination of celebrity worship and Disney-inspired images of what royalty is. It is quite disgusting to me.

What baffles me more is that the Brits put up with the royals. My father has an English GF who has quite the collection of royal memorabilia. Whenever I ask her (or just about any brit) what they think on the subject, they usually cite the tourism benefits and/or the feeling of solidarity through tradition. I suppose those are valid benefits, but still I can't help but think I'd rather see a world where monarchs exist only in books.
oh, and they all look like fucking horses...

>> No.15400489

I think of my country as a club, and our royalty are the direct descendants of the dude who started it all, so it's fine with me if they get VIP benefits, on top of that there's the benefits you mentioned yourself.

Also I'm not talking about britland.

>> No.15400571


Why should the progeny be treated as VIPs? They didn't start it.

>> No.15400685

But she isn't a human being?

>> No.15400730

Britfag reporting in.

Nor are they descended from the people who did.

The line ended at about the time of King George "I can see Germany through my telescope" the Third. Because he was German.

The royal line of England has died. Thank fuck for that.

With the possible exception of King "Doomsday Book" John AKA ye olde Richard Nixon there has not been a good monarch since the Saxon Kings.

>> No.15400743

As an Englishman... I gotta point out that very few people actually give an ever-loving shit about the royals.
I mean sure, we laugh our asses off when that Greek idiot Philip says something stupid or racist (about twice daily), but you know what I heard talked about for weeks after the Royal Wedding? Pipa Middleton's arse.
The future king had just been married, and the regulars at the pub I work in were talking about his sister-in-law's arse.
God Bless the British.

>> No.15400751

Me? I'm a British Republican and a Constitutionalist. Now, Queenie is alright and i'm happy for her to finish her reign, but afterwards, the Royal Family should just abdicate with dignity and we can get on with establishing a modern state with a much needed reform both of our contsitution and of the mechanics of Government (especially the Civil Service).

>> No.15400774

There have been some magnificent bastards.

Dat Edward III. Such an asshole.

>> No.15400775

>our constitution.

The United Kingdom has no constitution. What are you talking about?

>> No.15400785

That's the point. We have an uncodified constitution. We need some of that delicious codification.

>> No.15400796



>> No.15400797

If we were judging people by who made the modern United Kingdom, Oliver Cromwell's decedents should be the ones that get the special treatment.

>> No.15400799


>> No.15400800

You blame royalty for the state of our civil services and infrastructure? It's the ineptitude of parliment and elected politicians at large that fuck up. Royalty has jack all to do with it.

>> No.15400810

I like having the royal family. They have a large amount of pomp and ceremony for everything which without would be much more boring. They don't prevent people from being any less free. And as for money, they are a boost to the taxpayer, with or without tourism. Look up the Royal Estate. The Queen, being rich as fuck, owns a lot of land, property and businesses. These generate a profit which she then chooses to give to the treasury in return for a wage from the Civil List. So whilst she get £40m+ a year from tax money, she also gives £200m+ to the people. This is an entirely voluntary act.

>> No.15400812


And be even more hated by the Irish?

Cromwell was a dick.

>> No.15400821

No, I don't blame the Royal Family at all. However, the end of the monarchy would provide a good impetus for reform in general.

>> No.15400852


Yeah, because the Irish are going to stop being whiny bitches about being conquered if nobody mentions Cromwell.

He kicked the shit out of them with good reason.

>> No.15400863

Of this I am uncomfortably aware.

But intentionally sticking a decedent of his on the throne and the bitch-fest goes up another notch.

>> No.15400886


I still don't like the idea of showering people with attention just because they were born lucky, royals and offspring of celebrities alike.

Back when the wedding was going on, I heard an interview with Jerry Seinfeld discussing British theatre and explaining how it is the greatest in the world, because as a culture; brits love dressing up, putting on silly hats, and acting like these are important people.

Also, as an Irish/German American with lineage I can trace back to revolutionaries, it is perhaps in my blood to feel distaste for the British Crown.

>> No.15400909

>Pipa Middleton's arse.
Ooh Pipa...

>> No.15400911

And that sort of philosophy is perhaps from where all this madness springs. Believing some sort of predisposition toward certain modes of behavior can aptitudes can be passed on in the blood.

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle is far more important than the blood that flows through the veins, regardless of what the Fable games may tell you.

>> No.15400926

>Believing some sort of predisposition toward certain modes of behavior can aptitudes can be passed on in the blood.

What, you mean genetics?

>> No.15400935

Well you can't stop a person from being born 'lucky'. Not unless you lived in a place where after birth, all children were taken from their parents and raised in giant orphanages to make it all fair.

As for in the blood, I'm English but a lot my family is Irish. And our lineage seems to mysteriously stop in the Irish Civil war.

>> No.15400936


So the long and short of it is that you're jelly, right?

Also, why the fuck are you americans so ashamed of being american? Everybody is a (something)-american. You can't be proud of your own country and culture?

Even from a mere profit-making point of view it's worth it to have the royals around.

Also for all that idiots might dismiss the house of lords, they're the only ones who are not lapdogs of whichever government is in power at the moment, and they're the ones who are fighting the increasing amount of legislation aimed at stripping away our civil liberties.

>> No.15400964

When the Labour party came to power, they decided to show their political opinion by taking down a portrait of a Nepalese Prince, because they didn't like it's imperialistic look, and replacing it with a Portrait of Cromwell. Their first meeting with a foreign dignitary was with the Irish government and the Nepalese government too great offence at their portrait being removed.

>> No.15400977

No. The attitude of "I hate the Royalists because my ancestors fought for the Parliamentarians in the Civil War/are Irish".

Jesus fucking Christ. It happened hundreds of years ago to people you have never met.

>> No.15400984

>Implying that a monarchy, something that many countries have, is the most ass-backwards tradition.

You're right! Fuck genital mutilation, we're OBVIOUSLY the most backwards!

>> No.15400986

I agree with the house of Lords. Having an unelected group within the government system may seem undemocratic at first, but they are also the only people in it who are immune to the bribery, backstabbing, party loyalty and politics and corruption that can be evident in the house of commons. They can also be overturned by the house of commons when needs be.

>> No.15401012

The thing about the Queen (and the monarchy in general) is that they perform an important societal role, in being a living representation of British values, that's their job. To remind us to be the best we can be, to remind us to be, above all else, British gentlemen.

That is why the King refused to flee London during WW2. Why the Queen spent her nights visiting people taking shelter in tube stations instead of running to Canada. Why she said "I'm glad Buckingham has been bombed, I can now look the East End in the face". Why they demanded to be rationed as harshly as everyone else, so much so that they had to save coupons for a wedding dress, and during an official visit Eleanor Roosevelt complained about the lack of hot water.

What I'm getting at is, the Queen is like Captain America, but for Britain.

>> No.15401027

See, the Americans like their laws and constitutions and such set in stone.
But the British mentality is basically don't fix what ain't broke.

We still have a state religion. But we ignore it and somehow end up being less religious than America with its separation of church and state.

The Royal Family pay their way, and it's nice having a 'neutral' party as a kind of failsafe for the government in case it decides that the country would be better off under 24 hour martial law or something.

I mean, we can replace it due to some ideals of the equality of all men but we'll still need to replace it. And with what? More civil servants?

We'd have to change our coins and write a new national anthem. That is far too much effort.

>> No.15401031

Now we have a prince that dresses up as a Nazi for shits and giggles.

>> No.15401040


Being born lucky is one thing. Relatively speaking, we are all very lucky people here. But there is a difference between having a fortunate situation to be born in, and being born in that situation and immediately becoming admired by people.


>Also, why the fuck are you americans so ashamed of being american? Everybody is a (something)-american. You can't be proud of your own country and culture?

Our country and culture is that we are a combination of countries and cultures. Those are where our family traditions come from. And many of us are ashamed to just say "American" because this country is a big place and we don't all identify with each-other. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be grouped with some southern hick, nor would I want to be likened to some SoCal Hollywood-inspired stereotype.

>> No.15401083

oh no! Heaven forbid someone went to a fancy dress party in fancy dress!

>> No.15401084


I apologize, the facetious tone of my original statement:

>Also, as an Irish/German American with lineage I can trace back to revolutionaries, it is perhaps in my blood to feel distaste for the British Crown.

didn't carry though in text form.

I meant that to be interpreted more as "gee whiz, if these people are special for being of a certain lineage, perhaps, by that standard, lineage is just as specially predisposed to be their opposite."

>> No.15401098

Now, the Queen lives in a very big house, she has barbed wire outside, and people with guns in front of that. Now that's one saved fuckin' Queen, I tell ya. That's the problem. She's overly saved; she has no idea of the struggle of human existence. We have to work for a living, raise our familes we don't have nannies all running all over the place. It's what you gotta do in your life. You know? And so "God save the Queen"? No! She's too saved, it's God ATTACK the Queen. That's what it should be.

"God Attack the Queen, Send big dogs after her; That bite her bum. Let them chase after her, and rip her knickers off..."

That'd be fantastic! Then she'd have to fight the crazy dog with a - with a handbag with a brick inside of it.

Queen: Crazy dog! Crazy dog!
Stage Dir: Queen beats dog with handbag
CD: Rarrrgh! Kill the Queen!
Queen: No! Crazy dog!
Stage Dir: Queen beats on dog more

And maybe she'd kill the crazy dog and in Britain we'd be like "Well, fair play to the Queen. Killed the crazy dog."

>> No.15401107

Did Cameron put that picture back up yet?

I really, really like Cameron. I know the Tories have had a bad rap since the insane Reaganomics of Thatcher, but Cameron is different. Unlike Labour, he's not afraid to do what needs to be done, no matter how disliked or unPC it is.

>> No.15401113


>We still have a state religion. But we ignore it and somehow end up being less religious than America with its separation of church and state.

The reasons we have so many religious fanatics are many. But one major one is the Puritans coming from Britain to get away from said state religion.

>> No.15401143

While America's constitution and such is made up of a single document, the British one is made up of dozens of smaller documents.

This means that it takes longer for things to change (I'm still waiting for that Lothian Question to be resolved) but you get less idiots proclaiming they know what it says in it, and pushing for a stupid change.

>> No.15401240


>This means that it takes longer for things to change
>but you get less idiots proclaiming they know what it says in it, and pushing for a stupid change.

The US constitution is insanely hard to change, it has done so very little over its history. That's part of the reason it has there are always those pushing for change: because chances are that what they want is not going to happen, but if it does, it will be like making a mountain budge.

>> No.15401256

>The US constitution is insanely hard to change

Right, but ours is even harder to.

>> No.15401268

or even whether its sensible or not

>> No.15401274

Define 'sensible'

That's an incredibly ambiguous word.

>> No.15401292

That's because it's spread out so thinly you really have to pay lawyers good money to search through it to find out what you want changed in the first place.

More money for us, eh.

>> No.15401295

Yeah, US constitution doesn't have to be changed when it can be reinterpreted.

>> No.15401344

Who would we replace the Queen with, anyway? A President with executive powers, in which case we get President Blair, or an elected head of state, in which case our head of state becomes as relevant as the German President (go on, name them)

It works as it is. No need to go change things. I'd rather have a head of state who has the history and the lineage and the back up of being head of state to 16 other badass nations then have an elected nobody.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.