Author Topic: The "Royal" Wedding  (Read 2036 times)

Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2973
  • --Intellect not re-elect--
    • Email
The "Royal" Wedding
« on: April 30, 2011, 05:51:09 am »
So, the "royal" wedding was yesterday. The charming english "prince" took his "commoner" wife yesterday. What a noble man to lift this poor woman out of her peasantry! I swear I heard the news refer to this woman as a commoner. Is it still the status quo in England to refer to those who are not "royalty" as commoners? A man that inhales, and exhales the same shit I do, is not royalty. Why do the English still care about this crap? Does the "royal" family still have any power?
"The flames will rise, and devour me. Oh to breathe in fire, and know I'm free." - Thrice

|Ze'per|

PalmettoPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
    • Southern Nationalist Network
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2011, 09:40:25 am »
As much as I am turned off by the whole thing, Chris, it would likely be a positive development in terms of liberty (as Hoppe has argued in his book "Democracy - The God that Failed") if the UK monarchy were given more power and power were taken away from the House of Commons (as long as we're talking about keeping the central states). This is not going to happen though. The royals will remain highly-paid figureheads. One thing I will say on their behalf is that is some European states are only kept together by the monarchy. I'm thinking of the UK, Belgium and Spain. All of these states have strong separatist movements. The monarchies are unifying symbols. Without the monarchies it's very likely that the Flemish, the Scottish and the Catalans would all be independent from their central states.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 09:42:03 am by PalmettoPatriot »
'The tendency towards political centralization that has characterized the Western world for many centuries, first under monarchical rule and then under democratic auspices, must be systematically reversed.'

-Dr Hans-Hermann Hoppe

-----------------------------------

'If to think, to speak, to feel such sentiments as these, constitute me a disunionist and a traitor, according to the English language as now understood in Carolina, then gentlemen, I am a Disunionist! ? I am a Traitor!'

-Robert Barnwell Rhett

painkilleraz

  • Guest
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2011, 10:20:01 am »
I have a "royal" wedding for you- ;) (in my pants)

Okay so that was juvenile, but hey I am involved in Juvenile Deviance- I guess it wears off occasionally!

Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2973
  • --Intellect not re-elect--
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2011, 10:20:38 am »
I agree with Hoppes position. It's better to have 1 king than 1000. That's basically his argument. But you know me by now, Palmetto! I am morally opposed to all government that is not voluntary.
"The flames will rise, and devour me. Oh to breathe in fire, and know I'm free." - Thrice

|Ze'per|

Bill

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
  • Founder & Publisher of Zero Gov
    • Zero Gov
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2011, 08:46:05 am »
I hate to posit this but I think Hoppe was groping in the dark for a "new spin" on limited government and landed on the royalty bandwagon.  Hollywood and popular literature have always lauded good kings as the ones who listen to their constituencies (not the aristocrats in the court) and nothing could be farther from historical truth.  Kings and queens never cede power of their own volition but only when forced.  They are always the first to pick up the sword and start slashing whoever threatens their power.

I love Shakespeare and I love Henry V (I even still have my dog-eared and ancient pocket leather copy I traipsed around the world with while slaying dragons for King and Country).  Henry was a power hungry psychopath in reality and no different than the long line of royals following.

We just saw The King's Speech and I really enjoyed it but it was fantasy.  This was the same George VI who presented a Sword of Stalingrad to Stalin at Tehran.  During WWII, Heinrich Mueller, Gestapo chief characterized the Royals thus: 

He said the members of the British royal family were inbred imbeciles who married their own cousins and produced children with the intellect of chickens. He said the king -- that was back then -- was so stupid that if it weren't for his wife, he wouldn't take off his clothes when he bathed. That was George VI.

No King for me.
Gun control is mind control.

"So no more running, I aim to misbehave.? - Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity, 2005

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1, "Arrest")

" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are nothing but targets,
Nine are real fighters...
We are lucky to have them...They make the battle,
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...
and He will bring the others back."

- Heraclitus

Ragnaroks!

AZRedhawk44

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2011, 10:00:07 am »
Given free will, and assuming imminent and unavoidable battle...

I'd rather follow this guy:



Than this guy:




That's not a blanket endorsement of Royalty.  It's an affirmation of logical choice and free will.

Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2973
  • --Intellect not re-elect--
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2011, 12:03:14 pm »
Oh come on Redhawk, be fair! If that bike isn't tactical, it's at least really, really sweet! I'm followin' that guy! ;D
"The flames will rise, and devour me. Oh to breathe in fire, and know I'm free." - Thrice

|Ze'per|

AZRedhawk44

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2011, 02:31:40 pm »
I don't care about tactical, I care about moral compass and experience.  Yeah, Prince Harry is all dudded up in MOLLE gear with a pistol strapped to him while Obummer is knock-kneeing around on a bike too small for him and with a ridiculous helmet on this head... but I'd follow Harry into a fight before I'd follow Obummer because Harry knows what a fight IS, what's worth fighting for, and he is respected by the men that have served with him.

Seems like a good 10% of the US Armed Forces are tied up in court over the last 2 years, trying to say "where's the Birth Certificate? I'm not following your orders until you show me a Birth Certificate!"



As far as the Windsors... I think we're going to see a rebirth in their popularity with William and Harry.  Real popularity, not "People magazine" popularity.  I think they're both strong, capable leaders.  Charles has been a schmuck forever and the whole "Dianna" thing always escaped my comprehension... must be a woman thing.  I think the pomp and ceremony around the marriage was silly, but I also think the pomp and ceremony around a Presidential inauguration or burial is silly.  Triply so for a burial.

Remember that the Crown still has titular office in the British government.  They still legally have a role in government.  They choose which member of Parliament leads the creation of a new government after elections, and ultimately this will end up deciding whom the Prime Minister shall be.  Traditionally the Crown has simply handed this role to the most senior member of the dominant political party in Parliament with no questions asked, but they have the power to abandon that logic and hand over the various Ministries to any faction they choose.


Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2973
  • --Intellect not re-elect--
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2011, 02:25:10 am »
I was only joking, Redhawk. Tough crowd!  ;)

Personally, I wouldn't follow either of those schmucks. I don't give a crap what leadership skills he has, or what blood is flowing through his veins. If he had a good moral compass, he would have told the English people he was not a legitimate leader(in spite of his leadership skills)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 02:34:31 am by Chris »
"The flames will rise, and devour me. Oh to breathe in fire, and know I'm free." - Thrice

|Ze'per|

phaed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1934
  • resident minarchist
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2011, 11:26:37 am »
oh gawd, he's got a hi-power
[3.205x10^(-9)]%'er

Bill

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
  • Founder & Publisher of Zero Gov
    • Zero Gov
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2011, 02:43:12 pm »
So does President Ender...
Gun control is mind control.

"So no more running, I aim to misbehave.? - Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity, 2005

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1, "Arrest")

" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are nothing but targets,
Nine are real fighters...
We are lucky to have them...They make the battle,
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...
and He will bring the others back."

- Heraclitus

Ragnaroks!

painkilleraz

  • Guest
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2011, 06:39:02 am »
Ugg- I will never follow any of them again... >:(


Steve would be drooling btw- highpower!


Almost as good as presitenders highpoints and my keltecs LOL

Joe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • Email
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2011, 06:22:51 am »
Peter Beresford Ellis may be on interest to many who post here; he's a wonderful historian for all things Celtic. Here's an article he wrote on the origin of the "English" Royal Family....great stuff!

http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/royalty/





SonofThunder

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: The "Royal" Wedding
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2011, 12:10:46 pm »
As much as I am turned off by the whole thing, Chris, it would likely be a positive development in terms of liberty (as Hoppe has argued in his book "Democracy - The God that Failed") if the UK monarchy were given more power and power were taken away from the House of Commons (as long as we're talking about keeping the central states). This is not going to happen though. The royals will remain highly-paid figureheads. One thing I will say on their behalf is that is some European states are only kept together by the monarchy. I'm thinking of the UK, Belgium and Spain. All of these states have strong separatist movements. The monarchies are unifying symbols. Without the monarchies it's very likely that the Flemish, the Scottish and the Catalans would all be independent from their central states.

If the Royalty is the only thing keeping the states together, and otherwise many secessions would be happening, then I have yet another reason to dislike royalty.

The Royal wedding stuff here in the US made me sick to my stomach. I literally wanted to puke at some of the stuff I was seeing on TV. I just don't understand the complete disconnect with reality that so many people seem to have. Those fucks used to own entire nations of people, and now we're all giddy over their inbred offspring getting married? They're spending millions of pounds on every extravagance and instead of being critical, the press just fawns over every single thing. "Oh this bridesmaid dress is amazing, it cost 1,500,000 pounds, it is so beautiful."

These are the same asshats that constantly bemoan CEO pay and talk about the need to soak the rich. But for royalty, well us commoners need to just learn our place.

It's as if we here in South Carolina appointed one family to be our symbolic "plantation family" complete with african slaves, and then whenever they had a marriage in the family all the black folks from the entire Southeast would travel to the plantation and fawn all over the slave masters. I mean it just makes no sense.