Forums > Social Discussion > The Royal Family - for or against?
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
(I searched and didn't find anything... sorry if I missed an earlier thread though)
OK, I'm relativley undecided on this issue and I'd like you guys to help me clear it up. I can see both sides of the argument to some extent, and whilst earlier in my life I was strongly anti-royalist certain things that I have discovered about them recently have changed my mind somewhat.
So here's my opinions..
For:
The royal family perform the same role that any heads of state do with the money they are given by taxpayers. Although it seems extravagant to give million pound parties to visiting dignitaries etc, the same happens in pretty much every nation. The money they are given is spent in this way, and as a figurehead there is no-one in the world who has as much cache as the queen. People respect her and the effect of an invitation to a royal party has won the UK many business deals etc that other heads of state couldn't match, regardless of funding.
The royals obtain most of their personal wealth from landowning, which is legal for anyone to do and I don't think they should be criticised for this.
The queen's powers over the commonwealth and everyone in the UK.. in living memory, the only time she's used her powers is to remove an evidentially corrupt politician from office in a move that is singularly undiplomatic, but was actually a great releif to the people who were fooled into voting for the person. But I'm really not sure of the details.
They are involved in many schemes that a lot of people never hear of. For example, I don't claim to know this in-depth but how many people have heard of Prince Charles' town? He has a keen interest in architecture and criticised modern towns for their uninspired and depressing formations. When challeneged to do better, he did. They built the town and it's a fully-working place, with one of the lowest crime-rates in the country. I'd say more about it but I'm not 100% on the details. Still, he's clearly not the idiot he's made out to be.
Against:
The royals seem to embody everything that is fundamentally British. Unfortunatley this also involves casual racism, hunting, and generally being a cultural anachronism. I'm not going into this too much as those who oppose the royals certainly will. Just a little fodder for this though - Prince Harry, Worst Royal Ever? If he's not doing cocaine or beating up photographers.. he's dressing up as a nazi at fancy dress parties. Nice one.
Not the world's best post but hopefully it'll stir up some debate!
(I searched and didn't find anything... sorry if I missed an earlier thread though)
OK, I'm relativley undecided on this issue and I'd like you guys to help me clear it up. I can see both sides of the argument to some extent, and whilst earlier in my life I was strongly anti-royalist certain things that I have discovered about them recently have changed my mind somewhat.
So here's my opinions..
For:
The royal family perform the same role that any heads of state do with the money they are given by taxpayers. Although it seems extravagant to give million pound parties to visiting dignitaries etc, the same happens in pretty much every nation. The money they are given is spent in this way, and as a figurehead there is no-one in the world who has as much cache as the queen. People respect her and the effect of an invitation to a royal party has won the UK many business deals etc that other heads of state couldn't match, regardless of funding.
The royals obtain most of their personal wealth from landowning, which is legal for anyone to do and I don't think they should be criticised for this.
The queen's powers over the commonwealth and everyone in the UK.. in living memory, the only time she's used her powers is to remove an evidentially corrupt politician from office in a move that is singularly undiplomatic, but was actually a great releif to the people who were fooled into voting for the person. But I'm really not sure of the details.
They are involved in many schemes that a lot of people never hear of. For example, I don't claim to know this in-depth but how many people have heard of Prince Charles' town? He has a keen interest in architecture and criticised modern towns for their uninspired and depressing formations. When challeneged to do better, he did. They built the town and it's a fully-working place, with one of the lowest crime-rates in the country. I'd say more about it but I'm not 100% on the details. Still, he's clearly not the idiot he's made out to be.
Against:
The royals seem to embody everything that is fundamentally British. Unfortunatley this also involves casual racism, hunting, and generally being a cultural anachronism. I'm not going into this too much as those who oppose the royals certainly will. Just a little fodder for this though - Prince Harry, Worst Royal Ever? If he's not doing cocaine or beating up photographers.. he's dressing up as a nazi at fancy dress parties. Nice one.
Not the world's best post but hopefully it'll stir up some debate!
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
World Champ Procrastinator
580 posts
Location: ||...lost...||
580 posts
Location: ||...lost...||
Posted:
umm, i have no real opinion about royalty.. i also live in a kingdom, and my brother is very against the royal family here, but i guess im with you tho, some good and some bad aspects, as with everything..
however id like to comment on you question as to whether or not prince harry is the worst royal ever.. i definitely dont think so.. imo, it really sucks to be royalty or an international movie star, jsut because of all the publicity and attention you get, photographers and journalists prying into your life.. so what if harry tried some grass or cocaine? hes just wants to be a normal kid is what it seems like to me. however, maybe you could paraphrase the question differently: is prince harry the worst at keeping up the 'perfect royal facade'? cuz after all, they are all humans with opinions and feelings.
umm, i have no real opinion about royalty.. i also live in a kingdom, and my brother is very against the royal family here, but i guess im with you tho, some good and some bad aspects, as with everything..
however id like to comment on you question as to whether or not prince harry is the worst royal ever.. i definitely dont think so.. imo, it really sucks to be royalty or an international movie star, jsut because of all the publicity and attention you get, photographers and journalists prying into your life.. so what if harry tried some grass or cocaine? hes just wants to be a normal kid is what it seems like to me. however, maybe you could paraphrase the question differently: is prince harry the worst at keeping up the 'perfect royal facade'? cuz after all, they are all humans with opinions and feelings.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
If there is to be a Royal Family in the UK... I think rule number one should be...
DO NOT DRESS UP LIKE A NAZI.
Non-Https Image Link
Dumbass.
If there is to be a Royal Family in the UK... I think rule number one should be...
DO NOT DRESS UP LIKE A NAZI.
Non-Https Image Link
Dumbass.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
I like the royal family. Who else can we test out new artificial hips on?
Valuable function is all I'm saying.
I like the royal family. Who else can we test out new artificial hips on?
Valuable function is all I'm saying.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
veteran
1,269 posts
Location: middle of Troon
1,269 posts
Location: middle of Troon
Posted:
it was a fancy dress party.. he was being ironic... i don't think it deseverves al the hype theyve put on him.
it was a fancy dress party.. he was being ironic... i don't think it deseverves al the hype theyve put on him.
random murbles
BELTANE FIRE FESTIVAL. 30th april ~ Calton hill - Edinburgh
SAMHUINN FESTIVAL. 31st October ~ Royal Mile - Edinburgh
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Hmm. After living in the New York City metropolitan area (the world's largest concentration of Jews, including Israel) for going on 23 years now, I'd say it's relatively hard for non-Jews (like myself) to really GET it as far as the Nazi thing goes...there just is no symbol that fills non-Jews with anger and grief the way the swastika does Jews. I think no one should ever wear one, unless they're actually acting in a historical drama or equivalent.
Not at a costume party (which is what we call "fancy dress parties" here in the benighted US). Dress as Freddy Krueger, but don't wear a swastika. (And it's not like he was wearing a full-dress uniform -- he wore the armband and the collar tag and that's about it, going by the picture. Some frelling costume.)
And Harry ought to have known better. His grandmother ought to have explained it to him. Also his great-granduncle (do I have that right? Elizabeth's father's brother) was a Nazi sympathizer -- he has no room for ambiguity on this topic. I think he should go on the Auschwitz trip as many have proposed, and see first hand what that all leads to. As a prelude I think he should watch Night and Fog before going.
Full disclosure: I am an American and have no right to opinions about whether the British Royal Family should exist, be subsidized, pay taxes etc.; I do claim the right to comment on the behavior of public figures, which Harry is, albeit through no fault or choice of his own. Also, as a homosexual I certainly would have been locked up in a concentration camp by the Nazis, probably killed, ostracized even by the other inmates, and transferred to a postwar prison after the Liberation. So I'm a little sensitive on the topic of Nazis, thanks -- and the fact that my own country appears to be sliding into fascism as we speak makes me damned nervous too.
Hmm. After living in the New York City metropolitan area (the world's largest concentration of Jews, including Israel) for going on 23 years now, I'd say it's relatively hard for non-Jews (like myself) to really GET it as far as the Nazi thing goes...there just is no symbol that fills non-Jews with anger and grief the way the swastika does Jews. I think no one should ever wear one, unless they're actually acting in a historical drama or equivalent.
Not at a costume party (which is what we call "fancy dress parties" here in the benighted US). Dress as Freddy Krueger, but don't wear a swastika. (And it's not like he was wearing a full-dress uniform -- he wore the armband and the collar tag and that's about it, going by the picture. Some frelling costume.)
And Harry ought to have known better. His grandmother ought to have explained it to him. Also his great-granduncle (do I have that right? Elizabeth's father's brother) was a Nazi sympathizer -- he has no room for ambiguity on this topic. I think he should go on the Auschwitz trip as many have proposed, and see first hand what that all leads to. As a prelude I think he should watch Night and Fog before going.
Full disclosure: I am an American and have no right to opinions about whether the British Royal Family should exist, be subsidized, pay taxes etc.; I do claim the right to comment on the behavior of public figures, which Harry is, albeit through no fault or choice of his own. Also, as a homosexual I certainly would have been locked up in a concentration camp by the Nazis, probably killed, ostracized even by the other inmates, and transferred to a postwar prison after the Liberation. So I'm a little sensitive on the topic of Nazis, thanks -- and the fact that my own country appears to be sliding into fascism as we speak makes me damned nervous too.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
BRONZE Member
2,530 posts
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
2,530 posts
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posted:
i feel that the royal family is truely pointless
they waste most of the countries tax on s**t like multi million pound parties when it could be used for more valuable things over a MUCH longer period of time, like imporving the NHS or something along those lines.
most of the royal family is completely useless. the queen may have removed a corrupt politician from power, but we live in democracy, people should have seen this and done somethign about it.
i admit that harry was a bit stupid in dressing up as a nazi, but he's being a typical party goer, doin what he wanted, and taking drugs. if a random 20 or so year old was walking down the street dressed as a nazi, he may get a few gestures and get called a few things, but he wouldnt make front page news, a photographer wouldnt take a bomb-load of photo's of him and sell them off
if any normal person "owned" as much land as the roayls do, they'd be taxed til debt collecters started taking furniture, and then end up having the land re-posessed.
my school is meant to be "one of the most selective schools in europe" as my headmaster said in a speech. a royal from another country came and they threw some welcome party and gave the kid the option free entrance and virtually free from school fees, despite the average person getting charged like £5,000 a term.
sorry about the major rant there
i feel that the royal family is truely pointless
they waste most of the countries tax on s**t like multi million pound parties when it could be used for more valuable things over a MUCH longer period of time, like imporving the NHS or something along those lines.
most of the royal family is completely useless. the queen may have removed a corrupt politician from power, but we live in democracy, people should have seen this and done somethign about it.
i admit that harry was a bit stupid in dressing up as a nazi, but he's being a typical party goer, doin what he wanted, and taking drugs. if a random 20 or so year old was walking down the street dressed as a nazi, he may get a few gestures and get called a few things, but he wouldnt make front page news, a photographer wouldnt take a bomb-load of photo's of him and sell them off
if any normal person "owned" as much land as the roayls do, they'd be taxed til debt collecters started taking furniture, and then end up having the land re-posessed.
my school is meant to be "one of the most selective schools in europe" as my headmaster said in a speech. a royal from another country came and they threw some welcome party and gave the kid the option free entrance and virtually free from school fees, despite the average person getting charged like £5,000 a term.
sorry about the major rant there
We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers, On whom the pale moon gleams;
We are the movers and shakers of the world for ever, it seems.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Well, that's interesting as:
1) I didn't know people were taxed on how much land they own rather than the income from that land. (yes, that was sarcasm!)
2) The Queen pays full rates of income tax and capital gains tax on her private income and the Privy Purse. (no sniggering please!)
Which is maybe why she eats out of tupperware.
Read the Royal Finances?
Briefly, in 2004 the Queen was given £36.8 million pounds of our money. And paid £176.9 million in tax. With the exception of her husband, who gets £359,000, the queen provides for the rest of the royal family.
And you haven't provided proof to counter the claim that she doesn't influence foreign policy and business so we could add on more there.
Basically the queen, as a financial asset of the country, is profitable. Now you could argue that if the queen was a private citizen we wouldn't have to pay her a penny. But any clever rich person has thier finances and assets in so many places that they often avoid paying the same clear rate of tax that the queen does.
The NHS budget is about £65 billion. £36.8 million does not go a long way in the NHS.
And Prince Harry has no royal blood in him - he's James Hewitt's son! And he's just a silly kid who didn't think about the costume (which is the Africa Corp's uniform so he wasn't just wearing an armband and the collar tags!)
Written by: Havokist
if any normal person "owned" as much land as the roayls do, they'd be taxed til debt collecters ....
Well, that's interesting as:
1) I didn't know people were taxed on how much land they own rather than the income from that land. (yes, that was sarcasm!)
2) The Queen pays full rates of income tax and capital gains tax on her private income and the Privy Purse. (no sniggering please!)
Which is maybe why she eats out of tupperware.
Read the Royal Finances?
Briefly, in 2004 the Queen was given £36.8 million pounds of our money. And paid £176.9 million in tax. With the exception of her husband, who gets £359,000, the queen provides for the rest of the royal family.
And you haven't provided proof to counter the claim that she doesn't influence foreign policy and business so we could add on more there.
Basically the queen, as a financial asset of the country, is profitable. Now you could argue that if the queen was a private citizen we wouldn't have to pay her a penny. But any clever rich person has thier finances and assets in so many places that they often avoid paying the same clear rate of tax that the queen does.
The NHS budget is about £65 billion. £36.8 million does not go a long way in the NHS.
And Prince Harry has no royal blood in him - he's James Hewitt's son! And he's just a silly kid who didn't think about the costume (which is the Africa Corp's uniform so he wasn't just wearing an armband and the collar tags!)
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't know anyone who'd be insensitive, racist or just plain ignorant enough to think they could get away with wearing NAzi clothing for whatever reason. Maybe that's just the people I hang around with.. but it's not funny to imitate people who committed genocide only 60 years ago, and killed millions upon millions of innocent civilians.
He didn't choose to be famous, but he is. It's his responisbility to not make himself look a twat, which he has repeatedly in the couple of years the media have been following him more intensivley. You could say that yeah, he was just trying coke or whatever.. but what about beating up a photographer? Or, come to that, dressing us as a Nazi for a party? I think he comes across as a total fool, with all the benefits of a private elitist education and about as much charm as a wet towel.
He deserves everything he gets because he is currently being judge on the merits of his own actions, and they've been pretty damn bad.
Written by: Havokist
i admit that harry was a bit stupid in dressing up as a nazi, but he's being a typical party goer, doin what he wanted, and taking drugs. if a random 20 or so year old was walking down the street dressed as a nazi, he may get a few gestures and get called a few things, but he wouldnt make front page news, a photographer wouldnt take a bomb-load of photo's of him and sell them off
I don't know anyone who'd be insensitive, racist or just plain ignorant enough to think they could get away with wearing NAzi clothing for whatever reason. Maybe that's just the people I hang around with.. but it's not funny to imitate people who committed genocide only 60 years ago, and killed millions upon millions of innocent civilians.
He didn't choose to be famous, but he is. It's his responisbility to not make himself look a twat, which he has repeatedly in the couple of years the media have been following him more intensivley. You could say that yeah, he was just trying coke or whatever.. but what about beating up a photographer? Or, come to that, dressing us as a Nazi for a party? I think he comes across as a total fool, with all the benefits of a private elitist education and about as much charm as a wet towel.
He deserves everything he gets because he is currently being judge on the merits of his own actions, and they've been pretty damn bad.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
SILVER Member
Pasta of Muppets
2,722 posts
Location: in the interwebs..., United Kingdom
Pasta of Muppets
2,722 posts
Location: in the interwebs..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Personally...
Dressing up as a Nazi - Bad, very bad indeed
The Queen, as a figurehead and someone who gives a sh*t about Britain, unlike Tony, and whose estates, monuments etc etc bring millions into the country via tourism (Spot the Brit outside Buckingham palace more than once, its a miracle... Spot the Yank, or Japanese and theyre 10 a penny)
-Good
Personally...
Dressing up as a Nazi - Bad, very bad indeed
The Queen, as a figurehead and someone who gives a sh*t about Britain, unlike Tony, and whose estates, monuments etc etc bring millions into the country via tourism (Spot the Brit outside Buckingham palace more than once, its a miracle... Spot the Yank, or Japanese and theyre 10 a penny)
-Good
ohmygodlaserbeamspewpewpew!
enthusiast
247 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland at present
247 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland at present
Posted:
I used to be anti-royal once, same sort of opinions as above... but now, no. Maybe not. With regards to the royals "wasting" all that money, the government does that far better (being an ex-civil servent I see first hand the wasted and ill spent money within the gevernment).
Now, for the 'Arry debat. First, he's a kid for
sake, he has the right to be one, just like me (mental age 
) and no I totally disagree that its his responisbility. If I were in that position, I'd do a alot more and alot worse in rebelling. I hate the media and the effect it causes.... so blame the media, not Harry. And also, Dom said its the Africa Corps uniform. I don't have any idea on that, (but the swastika does not equal Nazi's. It has been around for 3000 yrs and represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck) so was harry dressed as a Nazi, or the African Corps?? And what was his reasoning... which no matter how reasonable, will not make to the public domain because of teh media (except in an apology)
I used to be anti-royal once, same sort of opinions as above... but now, no. Maybe not. With regards to the royals "wasting" all that money, the government does that far better (being an ex-civil servent I see first hand the wasted and ill spent money within the gevernment).
Now, for the 'Arry debat. First, he's a kid for
sake, he has the right to be one, just like me (mental age ) and no I totally disagree that its his responisbility. If I were in that position, I'd do a alot more and alot worse in rebelling. I hate the media and the effect it causes.... so blame the media, not Harry. And also, Dom said its the Africa Corps uniform. I don't have any idea on that, (but the swastika does not equal Nazi's. It has been around for 3000 yrs and represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck) so was harry dressed as a Nazi, or the African Corps?? And what was his reasoning... which no matter how reasonable, will not make to the public domain because of teh media (except in an apology) I used to be indecisive, but I'm not so sure now.....
SILVER Member
member
102 posts
Location: SW London, UK
member
102 posts
Location: SW London, UK
Posted:
As a dual nationality type (Brit/Oz) [see, upside down
] I can see both sides of the monarchist v. republican argument. It is manifestly true, and has been documented somewhere but I can't remember where, that a constitutional monarchy makes for a much more stable country. Presidents elected by political parties worry me extremely. When Australia had a referendum regarding the monarchist v. republican question, nobody on the republican side had even come up with a workable alternative Head of State to the British Monarch.
However, the present House of Windsor, or at least the Queen's descendants, fills me with gloom. Is it surprising that Harry is grossly insensitive when he was brought up by a father who was capable of saying to his wife that he refused to be the only Prince of Wales who didn't have a mistress! The best of the bunch is Princess Anne, but there would have to be wholesale slaughter of her relatives before she could become Queen.
This is questionable. Harry bears an extremely close resemblance to Princess Diana's siblings, much more so than to Hewitt who wasn't around when Harry would have been conceived.
The Nazi fancy dress costume item hit the Aussie papers yesterday and most people here think Harry is both dumb and insensitive, and generally a waste of space and taxpayers' money. Melbourne has (or had) possibly the largest population of Holocaust survivors in the world, including New York, so it didn't go down well there.
This is an interesting debate, thanks to all contributors! Here's some summer sun for those of you in the northern hemisphere.
As a dual nationality type (Brit/Oz) [see, upside down
] I can see both sides of the monarchist v. republican argument. It is manifestly true, and has been documented somewhere but I can't remember where, that a constitutional monarchy makes for a much more stable country. Presidents elected by political parties worry me extremely. When Australia had a referendum regarding the monarchist v. republican question, nobody on the republican side had even come up with a workable alternative Head of State to the British Monarch.However, the present House of Windsor, or at least the Queen's descendants, fills me with gloom. Is it surprising that Harry is grossly insensitive when he was brought up by a father who was capable of saying to his wife that he refused to be the only Prince of Wales who didn't have a mistress! The best of the bunch is Princess Anne, but there would have to be wholesale slaughter of her relatives before she could become Queen.
Written by: Dom
...Prince Harry has no royal blood in him - he's James Hewitt's son!
This is questionable. Harry bears an extremely close resemblance to Princess Diana's siblings, much more so than to Hewitt who wasn't around when Harry would have been conceived.
The Nazi fancy dress costume item hit the Aussie papers yesterday and most people here think Harry is both dumb and insensitive, and generally a waste of space and taxpayers' money. Melbourne has (or had) possibly the largest population of Holocaust survivors in the world, including New York, so it didn't go down well there.
This is an interesting debate, thanks to all contributors! Here's some summer sun for those of you in the northern hemisphere.
RosieMary
----------------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever" ~ Mahatma Gandhi
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
a proper africa corps uniform (or any proper wehrmacht uniform of an enisted man - and you can clearly see by the collor piping that it is supposed to be an enlisted man's uniform) wouldn't have a swastika armband - the only swastikas would have been a very small one held by the Eagle's claws on the breat patch, and perhaps another very small one on the side of the helmet or front of the service cap.
actually, the "uniform" is horribly inaccurate in almost all respects including color, and about the only correct elements I can see is the color piping (sewed on wrong) and the eagle on his right breast.
Basically he decided to gratuitiously wear a swastica, and tried to frame a shoddy facimilie of a German uniform around it to add a context. Had german soldier uniforms really had this red armband with a swastika, I might feel more inclined to be forgiving, but really he is just trying to get away with wearing a nazi symbol to piss people off, so I think he is being rather stupid.
I admit to actually owning a german wehrmacht uniform which I occasionally do wear to costume parties myself, but it is as historically accurate as I can afford to make it and does not have the erronious (and provocative) swastica sleave band (implying Nazi party officials, gestapo - even high ranking generals did not generally wear such armbands) and the swastica on the breast patch has been deleted. I've never had anyone react badly to me wearing it (it is a bit of a conversation starter) though of course this is not something I would actually do here in Germany.
basically I don't care if he takes the piss out of people (maybe he was even taking a shot at the royal family) by wearing a german WWII uniform (which is not nesiccarly nazi you know), but the swastika is clearly there only to be an ass. it shouldn't be on any such uniform and really he could have just went to the party carry a nazi banner if that is what he wanted to do.
a proper africa corps uniform (or any proper wehrmacht uniform of an enisted man - and you can clearly see by the collor piping that it is supposed to be an enlisted man's uniform) wouldn't have a swastika armband - the only swastikas would have been a very small one held by the Eagle's claws on the breat patch, and perhaps another very small one on the side of the helmet or front of the service cap.
actually, the "uniform" is horribly inaccurate in almost all respects including color, and about the only correct elements I can see is the color piping (sewed on wrong) and the eagle on his right breast.
Basically he decided to gratuitiously wear a swastica, and tried to frame a shoddy facimilie of a German uniform around it to add a context. Had german soldier uniforms really had this red armband with a swastika, I might feel more inclined to be forgiving, but really he is just trying to get away with wearing a nazi symbol to piss people off, so I think he is being rather stupid.
I admit to actually owning a german wehrmacht uniform which I occasionally do wear to costume parties myself, but it is as historically accurate as I can afford to make it and does not have the erronious (and provocative) swastica sleave band (implying Nazi party officials, gestapo - even high ranking generals did not generally wear such armbands) and the swastica on the breast patch has been deleted. I've never had anyone react badly to me wearing it (it is a bit of a conversation starter) though of course this is not something I would actually do here in Germany.
basically I don't care if he takes the piss out of people (maybe he was even taking a shot at the royal family) by wearing a german WWII uniform (which is not nesiccarly nazi you know), but the swastika is clearly there only to be an ass. it shouldn't be on any such uniform and really he could have just went to the party carry a nazi banner if that is what he wanted to do.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
I thought that was the case...I can't remember where I read that not all the Afrika Korps were Nazis (i.e. actual party members), but I'm not even sure Rommel himself was. It was probably a highly questionable source, and Rommel probably had to join, but he certainly wasn't a True Believer.
The swastika (and vanize, even in English we use the K in that one) is indeed an ancient symbol, and occurs (reversed from the Nazi version) in Native American designs as well. In the exact form used by the Nazis it occurs in India. There is even a Heraldic name for it, it's called a fylfot.
But its reputation has been irretrievably sullied by its use in the hands of the worst mass-murderers so far in history. Particularly in Nazi-flag colors ("Gules, on a plate a fylfot per saltire sable"), it cannot be worn as a symbol of the sun or anything else, because all such associations are driven out by the power of its association with the Nazis. That's just semiotics; a stronger symbolic association drives out the weaker.
Too bad for the ancient symbolism. But we're not living in ancient times.
I thought that was the case...I can't remember where I read that not all the Afrika Korps were Nazis (i.e. actual party members), but I'm not even sure Rommel himself was. It was probably a highly questionable source, and Rommel probably had to join, but he certainly wasn't a True Believer.
The swastika (and vanize, even in English we use the K in that one) is indeed an ancient symbol, and occurs (reversed from the Nazi version) in Native American designs as well. In the exact form used by the Nazis it occurs in India. There is even a Heraldic name for it, it's called a fylfot.
But its reputation has been irretrievably sullied by its use in the hands of the worst mass-murderers so far in history. Particularly in Nazi-flag colors ("Gules, on a plate a fylfot per saltire sable"), it cannot be worn as a symbol of the sun or anything else, because all such associations are driven out by the power of its association with the Nazis. That's just semiotics; a stronger symbolic association drives out the weaker.
Too bad for the ancient symbolism. But we're not living in ancient times.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
enthusiast
247 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland at present
247 posts
Location: Cork, Ireland at present
Posted:
I'm still in favour of old harry. He is being held respsonible for his position, not his actions (I could do the same, even worse, and nobody would know or care)... the position he has was not a choice, and I wouldn't blame him if he does things to piss people off, if I was him, I would stick my finger up to the world... followed by my arse - I know that sounds immature, but I don't like being told what to do, how to act, dress and god knows what else he has to do. And does anyone consider what he done in Africa and what he wants to do?? no, lets just have a go 'cos the media are (without which we wouldn't know anyway!
sorry this went off the topic a bit.
I'm still in favour of old harry. He is being held respsonible for his position, not his actions (I could do the same, even worse, and nobody would know or care)... the position he has was not a choice, and I wouldn't blame him if he does things to piss people off, if I was him, I would stick my finger up to the world... followed by my arse - I know that sounds immature, but I don't like being told what to do, how to act, dress and god knows what else he has to do. And does anyone consider what he done in Africa and what he wants to do?? no, lets just have a go 'cos the media are (without which we wouldn't know anyway!
sorry this went off the topic a bit.
I used to be indecisive, but I'm not so sure now.....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Here's a link to a HOP thread on the issue of the swasticas meaning-
[Old link]
As for Prince Harry I can't see any reason to assume that he wore the uniform to annoy people; can't any historical innacuries be explained by the fact that he picked it out at a fancy dress shop (ie it was all they had in that line).
I'm not really seeing why that's preferable to Harrys choice; if anything going to all the effort of ensuring historical accuracy could, in some peoples eyes be more disturbing than spending 10 minutes in a fancy dress shop and thoughtlessly picking out a cliched nazi uniform.
Isn't that part of the problem? The press, in a cliched and predictable response smear the news all over the world, and a whole lot of people get offended who otherwise wouldn't have heard anything about it.
==========
I'm not saying he hasn't made an error of judgement; just that he's young (how many of us here haven't done things which, if they were broadcast around the world on national TV wouldn't attract similar levels of condemnation?)
At the end of the day isn't the important thing whether he's a fundamentally decent bloke or not? And that isn't going to be determined by blowing what was probably a party stunt into a media event.
Written by: Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
The swastika (and vanize, even in English we use the K in that one) is indeed an ancient symbol, and occurs (reversed from the Nazi version) in Native American designs as well. In the exact form used by the Nazis it occurs in India. There is even a Heraldic name for it, it's called a fylfot.
But its reputation has been irretrievably sullied by its use in the hands of the worst mass-murderers so far in history
Here's a link to a HOP thread on the issue of the swasticas meaning-
[Old link]
As for Prince Harry I can't see any reason to assume that he wore the uniform to annoy people; can't any historical innacuries be explained by the fact that he picked it out at a fancy dress shop (ie it was all they had in that line).
Written by: vanize
I admit to actually owning a german wehrmacht uniform which I occasionally do wear to costume parties myself, but it is as historically accurate as I can afford to make it and does not have the erronious (and provocative) swastica sleave band (implying Nazi party officials, gestapo
I'm not really seeing why that's preferable to Harrys choice; if anything going to all the effort of ensuring historical accuracy could, in some peoples eyes be more disturbing than spending 10 minutes in a fancy dress shop and thoughtlessly picking out a cliched nazi uniform.
Written by: RosieMary
The Nazi fancy dress costume item hit the Aussie papers yesterday and most people here think Harry is both dumb and insensitive, Melbourne has (or had) possibly the largest population of Holocaust survivors in the world, including New York, so it didn't go down well there.
Isn't that part of the problem? The press, in a cliched and predictable response smear the news all over the world, and a whole lot of people get offended who otherwise wouldn't have heard anything about it.
==========
I'm not saying he hasn't made an error of judgement; just that he's young (how many of us here haven't done things which, if they were broadcast around the world on national TV wouldn't attract similar levels of condemnation?)
At the end of the day isn't the important thing whether he's a fundamentally decent bloke or not? And that isn't going to be determined by blowing what was probably a party stunt into a media event.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
used to have a lot of opinions on this topic.
al i can say now is that i don't enjoy the knowledge that i am a subject, and not a citizen in my own country.
used to have a lot of opinions on this topic.
al i can say now is that i don't enjoy the knowledge that i am a subject, and not a citizen in my own country.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
That's a lingering thought in my mind, however balanced the argument looks.
Written by: Tao Star
all i can say now is that i don't enjoy the knowledge that i am a subject, and not a citizen in my own country.
That's a lingering thought in my mind, however balanced the argument looks.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
i believe this is the fundamental problem with the royals. they didn't choose to be there, we didn't choose to have them. they could be anyone with any views, problems, etc. etc.
i think they're very pretty, but i wish they didn't cost so much.
Written by: Bretch
the position he has was not a choice,
i believe this is the fundamental problem with the royals. they didn't choose to be there, we didn't choose to have them. they could be anyone with any views, problems, etc. etc.
i think they're very pretty, but i wish they didn't cost so much.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
SILVER Member
member
102 posts
Location: SW London, UK
member
102 posts
Location: SW London, UK
Posted:
To be a citizen you would have to move to a republic. A subject is necessarily the subject of a monarch, and Great Britain is - for now - a monarchy. If Australia goes republican, I should be in the interesting position of being both a citizen (of a republic) and a subject (of a monarchy).
Taxes will be the same, whoever.
I'd better go away and calm myself down after all this serious thinking!
Written by: Tao Star
al i can say now is that i don't enjoy the knowledge that i am a subject, and not a citizen in my own country.
To be a citizen you would have to move to a republic. A subject is necessarily the subject of a monarch, and Great Britain is - for now - a monarchy. If Australia goes republican, I should be in the interesting position of being both a citizen (of a republic) and a subject (of a monarchy).
Taxes will be the same, whoever.
I'd better go away and calm myself down after all this serious thinking!
RosieMary
----------------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever" ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
that's exactly the point.
I don't want to be subject to someone else
that's exactly the point.
I don't want to be subject to someone else
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
But regardless of whether you're in a republic or a monarchy you're always ruled over. You're a subject of the Queen, but what does that actually mean? I don't think it means anything different to being a member of a republic.
But regardless of whether you're in a republic or a monarchy you're always ruled over. You're a subject of the Queen, but what does that actually mean? I don't think it means anything different to being a member of a republic.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Seems to me like the royal family has taken on the role of "whipping boy" lately more than anything else.
Seems to me like the royal family has taken on the role of "whipping boy" lately more than anything else.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Dom, it does. In the US the government reports to the people (it hides things from us, but as you hide things from your boss). The same is true of the actual government in the UK, but the Queen is supposed to be different and special and everyone is supposed to want to please her. Note: the Queen reigns; the President serves.
Not that our current President understands this. He has no idea what public service is supposed to be about.
Lightning, while I agree with you, the juxtaposition of Prince Harry with the phrase "whipping boy" caused curious and inappropriate images to course through my head...
Dom, it does. In the US the government reports to the people (it hides things from us, but as you hide things from your boss). The same is true of the actual government in the UK, but the Queen is supposed to be different and special and everyone is supposed to want to please her. Note: the Queen reigns; the President serves.
Not that our current President understands this. He has no idea what public service is supposed to be about.
Lightning, while I agree with you, the juxtaposition of Prince Harry with the phrase "whipping boy" caused curious and inappropriate images to course through my head...
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Hmm...I think Wills is hotter, personally.
Hmm...I think Wills is hotter, personally.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Xopher - in theory. But in practise the Queen has no extra power than any other rich celebrity. We're ruled by the government, which reports to the people (or in practise the media). The Government is the Queen's government in name, but that doesn't affect how the government acts or who they are. A queen may 'reign' and a President 'serves' but you can argue that they serve themsleves as much as others and anyone who wants that much power probably shouldn't have it.
So, is it better to have as your figurehead a powerless family choosen by chance, or a powerful businessman who has chosen to be there for reasons know only to himself?
The actual power and position of a President varies from system to system. Some are just changeable figureheads that not many people actually care about, and others hold greater power than our PM. There's actually a short BBC Article on the power of presidents I read today.
Xopher - in theory. But in practise the Queen has no extra power than any other rich celebrity. We're ruled by the government, which reports to the people (or in practise the media). The Government is the Queen's government in name, but that doesn't affect how the government acts or who they are. A queen may 'reign' and a President 'serves' but you can argue that they serve themsleves as much as others and anyone who wants that much power probably shouldn't have it.
So, is it better to have as your figurehead a powerless family choosen by chance, or a powerful businessman who has chosen to be there for reasons know only to himself?
The actual power and position of a President varies from system to system. Some are just changeable figureheads that not many people actually care about, and others hold greater power than our PM. There's actually a short BBC Article on the power of presidents I read today.
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Oh, MUCH hotter. You bet. But no one was talking about him. And he doesn't deserve a whipping at the moment, that I know of.
Written by: ...Lightning...
Hmm...I think Wills is hotter, personally.
Oh, MUCH hotter. You bet. But no one was talking about him. And he doesn't deserve a whipping at the moment, that I know of.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Dom, put that way, I'd rather have a powerless family chosen by history (it ain't chance, bub). But that's not what we're talking about (or at least not what I was talking about).
I was talking about the people's feeling of whose government it is. It's the Queen's in the UK. It's MINE (and all other citizens') in the US. And the US President has NO power to tell me what to do, any more than the Queen does. The difference is that she has that power in theory, and he does not.
If I were a British Subject, and the Queen sent me a little note saying "come to the palace and sing for Us," I'd go (and the fact that she has no political power would strengthen that choice). If His Flatulence the President made a similar request of me, I'd send back a polite note with instructions where to shove it, and how to fold it first.
I daresay there are Brits who feel the same about Tony Blair. There may be some who feel that way about Her Maj, but I'd surmise that they are drastically fewer in number. Am I correct?
Dom, put that way, I'd rather have a powerless family chosen by history (it ain't chance, bub). But that's not what we're talking about (or at least not what I was talking about).
I was talking about the people's feeling of whose government it is. It's the Queen's in the UK. It's MINE (and all other citizens') in the US. And the US President has NO power to tell me what to do, any more than the Queen does. The difference is that she has that power in theory, and he does not.
If I were a British Subject, and the Queen sent me a little note saying "come to the palace and sing for Us," I'd go (and the fact that she has no political power would strengthen that choice). If His Flatulence the President made a similar request of me, I'd send back a polite note with instructions where to shove it, and how to fold it first.
I daresay there are Brits who feel the same about Tony Blair. There may be some who feel that way about Her Maj, but I'd surmise that they are drastically fewer in number. Am I correct?
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
OK, I see what you mean. "What's in a name..." and all.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people here tend to feel it's the Queen's government, not thier own. Public accountability is a regular thing here and the government answers only to itself and public/media pressure.
And there are plenty of Brits who feel that way about Blair. And many about the Queen as well, but I've never heard any of them make a convincing (to me) case against her. I'm not a royalist flag waver who thinks abolitionists should be hung for treason, I just like people to have good reasons for thier opinions.
OK, I see what you mean. "What's in a name..." and all.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people here tend to feel it's the Queen's government, not thier own. Public accountability is a regular thing here and the government answers only to itself and public/media pressure.
And there are plenty of Brits who feel that way about Blair. And many about the Queen as well, but I've never heard any of them make a convincing (to me) case against her. I'm not a royalist flag waver who thinks abolitionists should be hung for treason, I just like people to have good reasons for thier opinions.
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Im fine with the royals as, as has been mentioned, they are ornamental figureheads and only have token involvment in government.
Plus Charles, despite being a bit of an oaf, has done some truely wonderful things for truely wonderful causes, and has helped change many lives through the princes trust.
he also cares a great deal more for the 'average' briton and the environment they are to live in and inherit than our elected (but practically unaccountable) government.
All IMO
Im fine with the royals as, as has been mentioned, they are ornamental figureheads and only have token involvment in government.
Plus Charles, despite being a bit of an oaf, has done some truely wonderful things for truely wonderful causes, and has helped change many lives through the princes trust.
he also cares a great deal more for the 'average' briton and the environment they are to live in and inherit than our elected (but practically unaccountable) government.
All IMO
My Mummy Says Im Special
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Charles also prevented an architectural nightmare by simply stating that a proposed addition to the British Museum was "like seeing a hideous carbuncle on the face of an old friend" or words very much like those. I have no problems with him as such. The fact that he's called the Prince of Wales still angers me (pan-Celtic solidarity, y'know), but that's not his fault.
Charles also prevented an architectural nightmare by simply stating that a proposed addition to the British Museum was "like seeing a hideous carbuncle on the face of an old friend" or words very much like those. I have no problems with him as such. The fact that he's called the Prince of Wales still angers me (pan-Celtic solidarity, y'know), but that's not his fault.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [royal family] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The Royal Family - for or against? [31 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com