In the future, please link directly to the article or video as the main link.
Noted, thank you.
Edit: I flipped them around
Thanks!
They can’t call him sir, that’s an honorific in England that has meaning and he lost all formal titles, legally he isn’t a sir anymore he’s a Mr.
deleted by creator
No, they just can’t attempt to use the title like when they’re ordering house staff around, he’s a commoner now and he needs to accept that fact.
sounds like staff need to give Randy Andy the old Red Eye (Visine in beer-gives you the shits).
Specifically the red eye formula drops. Too much, or the right amount depending on how you look at it, can actually kill a person.
He should be working at McDonald’s f this scumbag
I think we really should stick to calling him “Prince Andrew.” If we don’t we’re letting the monarchy separate itself from him…but that’s bullshit; he has the privilege of being a prince and his status as prince is not just what gave him the liberty to be a monster, but I think we can assume it’s what actually made him a monster.
The Andrew formerly known as a prince.
I heard a very interesting argument that if the Royal family can remove Andrew from the line of succession, then the line itself can be manipulated, and anyone else could be added. In that case, what is the point of having a royal family?
A lot of people have a tendency to want to show loyalty to their country by showing subservience to some rich arrogant asshole that surrounds themselves with gold. See the how a significant percentage of the US population think of Trump for example.
If there is no King the subservient portion of the population will create one. It’s better to have a King that doesn’t have any actual power so that won’t happen. The subservient part of the population don’t really care that their King has no political power, they just want to bow to someone to prove their loyalty to the country and see some pomp and pageantry. For a lot of people the concept of a country is too abstract to understand so they need some person to do all kinds the ceremonial stuff so they can express their loyalty to the country by showing loyalty to that person.
Similar to how having a separation between government and religion, it’s a separation between government and all the ceremonial pomp and pageantry stuff.
Sure, I wouldn’t directly care if there was monarchy was eliminated, but a lot of other people would. And those people would start voting in some wealthy asshole to rule over us like a king. And that’s something I definitely don’t want. So just give the subservient types someone they can bow to so it doesn’t impact the rest of us.
I kind of feel like the Royal line has been nothing but manipulated. Usurpations, rule changes, and exceptions to primogeniture have been there since the beginning.
I’m not sure what the point is in any case. Whatever about how the monarch is chosen…having a monarch is bad! And this monarchy is particularly bad!
The line has been manipulated several times by Parliament, including the selection and elimination of kings.
The point of the royal family now isn’t to be a defined lineage, but an agreed upon vessel to hold power when Parliament temporarily breaks. Even then, Queen Elizabeth II was kind of shit at it.
It’d be nice if this led to just getting rid of the concept of royal families in general
A monarchy is a family business. Anyone in the family can run it. Monarchies are inherently unstable when the monarchs die because of this.
Authoritarian forms of government will be unstable when there’s no clear line of succession. It’s the reason why monarchies come about. It’s not like people don’t understand that it’s extremely arbitrary, it’s just that it’s better than the alternative: civil wars whenever whoever is in power dies. It’s an agreement among various lords that it’s better they just accept that person over there that’s the son of the King will someday be King rather than having a civil war when the King dies.
And sure civil wars would still happen, but most of the time the succession would happen without bloodshed. When there’s no line of succession, it’s just constant power struggles when the leader dies.
Of course democracy is a far better way to determine who will run things, but that requires a literate population to work. Which didn’t exist throughout much of human history. Sure, there were republics throughout history, but they’d usually become monarchies when the illiterate masses would decide they liked that Julius guy (he threw the best parties!) and hated that Brutus guy who killed him, even if the Julius guy was becoming a tyrant.
So monarchies suck, but they’re better than civil wars. So when the population becomes too dumb, it sucks, but it’s better than the alternatives.
Seems a little threadbare as a theory.
People have been adding other people to royal families for the entirety of recorded history.
Sometimes its through marriage, but sometimes its adoption, sometimes they just make up a lineage.
Now, theres arguments against royalty, for sure, but if the royal family wasn’t allowed to prune itself, find the best people and merge them into the royal family, etc, there never would’ve been royals in the first place. Royal families begin with individuals but they remain by caring about “good breeding” (and other ways of consolidating power).
Consolidating is the real purpose. It can be obscured with religious lines of divinity, or what have you, but royal families are always shopping for people to incorporate.
Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.
Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes
Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?
There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.
As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.
That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.
I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.
I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.
Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!
I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.
I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the “King-Byng affair” in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best…but that absolutely should resolve anyone’s question that the monarchy “has zero power in Canada.” People generally remember this as the crown “saving us from ourselves” …I don’t have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn’t have power…if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that…but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians…they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their “1975 constitutional crisis,” in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam…practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I’m a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don’t know this stuff…like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look…if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine… What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous…what happens if it’s not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that’s what happened in australia!).
The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.
Now that the Governor General is Canadian it’s kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there’s been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would’ve only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn’t come to that so whatever.
You’re a lawyer so you’re going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren’t codified into law. But right now we’re all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn’t abuse power and be completely corrupt because he’d be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn’t happening.
It’s obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he’d be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won’t abuse his position since he doesn’t want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.
We see a republic where there’s basically an aristocracy that’s above the law and we see a monarchy where the King’s brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?
Seems to me it doesn’t really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.
Well when the family has a long history of mass murder…
It’s kind of their thing really lol
The only good royal is dead royal.
Being a monarch or nobility of any kind is a crime against humanity. And yes, this applies to all, no exceptions. I don’t care how “constitutional” a monarch is. No one should have inheritable legal status or power. Inherited wealth is bad enough. Every king or noble should have to give up their title or give up their head.
People upset about the monarchy don’t have any real problems in their lives.
Congrats, you must have a real easy life if you’re doing the revolutionary cosplay thing over the fucking monarchy LOL.
I would argue for the heads, all of them, otherwise you get the Anastasia problem. Take all the toys away and there is nothing to fight about.
The pedophile traitor deserves a single finger salute and tell him to fetch his own beer.
Should be calling him by a number
Don’t post pictures of headlines. Link to the article
Sir Pedophile
Yeah but he got killed by his own son.
A huge piece of shit in almost every respect, but the character had his moments of poignancy.
a POS, but a good politician and he had his principles. not many lanisters could claim that much…
I am no true king.
You do the math. ;)
Right. You’re a potato.
His staff are on record as saying they call him “the cunt” when he’s not around. I forget which interview that was but it was a former staff member on a TV interview.
Seen it, I think it was an interview with one of the security staff
“Yes, sir. Flagon of ale for the child rapist, sir. And absolutely nobody has done anything untoward in it, sir”.
People are very negative but they don’t understand the house of windsor and how tradional it is. What else is traditional. The stockades.
I think it’s particularly hilarious that for all the talk of tradition, the house of “Windsor” was a name chosen during WWI, barely more than a century ago. The original name was “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha”, but somewhat awkwardly German bombers built by Gothaer Waggonfabrik and popularly known as “Gothas” happened to be dropping explosives on London.
why did they not go with saxe-cokburg?
To answer your query specifically, Saxe-Cokburg would have been more honest for a bunch of Anglo-Saxons
on hindsite I wish I had used an x but then again it would duplicative of saxe. still. can’t have enough x.
yeah i’m still waiting for them to bring back volcano sauce too
Why does this fucker get royal staff?
He’s still uber rich. Between being mummy’s favourite and being the literal shaddy deal’s man for the British government for a while, he probably has more money than he would be able to spend.
