Trina Inquires 5/12/22

Would keep or get rid of your country’s royal family (if you dont have one, would you want one)

This entry was posted in questions and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Trina Inquires 5/12/22

  1. The Royal family is part of your history. Keep it. You can’t get rid of history. Sadly, that is part of the problem in today’s world. Too many people are trying to get rid of their history.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sheree says:

    Despite their faults, they’re a huge tourist attraction.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Marlapaige says:

    The royal family is part of your heritage, not mine. It’s a beautiful and elegant reminder of the history of your country, my country cannot say the same. Perhaps it is a misconceived notion that they are ordained to be heads of state, but here “royalty” is based on how many TikTok followers you have or whether or not someone related to you was killed. Honestly, I don’t want royalty, but if we had to have royalty, I’d pick the kind you have over the kind we glamorize and raise to that level of importance for having no discernible talent. Or even worse, accepting those your people have cast aside (rightfully) and letting them try to convince us that they are still worthy of the title, the security, the wealth, but none of the responsibility. Crying on cue doesn’t make you royalty, it makes you a two-bit hollywood sideliner. But since they have no true justification for thinking they are worthy of any royal titles, they come here where it’s an instant hit: they have social media accounts for the masses to follow, no discernible talent, and one of them is related to someone who is dead and may or may not have been killed. Oooo! Trifecta of American royalty.

    Keep your history, your grandeur, your head of state and your national anthem. I guess we’ll keep the his and hers wrecking balls although I’d just as soon vote them off the island.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I wouldnt exactly say it was part of mine either, but it does bring up an interesting point about other country’s having the British Royal family has their royal family

      Like

      • Marlapaige says:

        Perhaps. I can’t speak for countries that actually accept the BRF as the RF for their countries. My country only accepts the BRF’s castoffs as important. Lucky me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If you think about it, there are very few English speaking countries without the RF has heads of state

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marlapaige says:

        Actually, I don’t think this is accurate. I have traveled extensively in the Before Times, and several of the Countries I visited spoke of this when they were explaining why they were not under British Rule. I am not getting into specific countries, I am more trying to remember the math(s) associated with it. I believe there are over sixty countries that have English as their official language – they might have more than one though (like S. Africa does with a whopping ELEVEN official languages, English among them). I think it’s only about one quarter of those English speaking countries that have the RF as their heads of state. Unless the BRF managed to acquire new countries during my lifetime, although I know of countries have left the monarchy, I know of none that joined recently. Assuming there were an equal number of countries that joined as had left, it would still hover around 1/4 of the countries; if none of joined, it’d be slightly lower than 1/4. I assume that it would be easy to confirm this via google, but it is 7:10 am here, and that’s a lot of work right now lol

        Liked by 1 person

      • I know that no one has been added, but I am fairly sure some countries have joined the commonwealth for trade reasons and I dont know the rules around having the royal family involved in those situations. I would assume not, but again google should be able to answer, I will have a google. I did do a quick google 67 countries have English as their head of state and weirdly 15 of those have the King as the head of state (exactly as you said) which is so strange as I thought it was more. My only thing is I might be thinking of the commonwealth which has 54 countries in it, I know countries have gotten rid of the King as head of state and stayed within the commonwealth, well one country recently

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marlapaige says:

        Right! That was one of the things I learned about during my travels. You can be a part of the commonwealth for all sorts of reasons and not accept the BRF as anything other than “fancy people who live over that way somewhere” and they point vaguely toward “not right here”. I am not 100% sure, but I think being a member of the commonwealth has nothing to do with the BRF being the head of state, even if you join now. It just means that you accept that in your history the BRF did kinda matter to your people until you gained your independence. Now, I think the King (I know the Queen was) the head of it all. It’s a symbolic thing – he’s the head of the commonwealth, not of the member countries. I think…

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am sure there is one country which was french owned that joined, for trade reasons, probably because it was surrounded by a bunch of country’s the British owned

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marlapaige says:

        Well, for sure, their joining doesn’t mean that their entire government would change to accept the BRF, right?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am agreeing with you. I just wish I could think of that country I am thinking of.

        Like

      • Marlapaige says:

        My brain does that all of the time.

        Also, I was actually legit asking, not arguing. I don’t know – I just don’t think that the BRF becomes everyone’s RF just because. I don’t know…Sorry, I’ve confused myself

        Liked by 1 person

      • They dont, if they join the commonwealth, I have done a little bit more research on it, but still cant find this damn country I was thinking of, maybe I imaged it

        Like

      • Marlapaige says:

        hahahaha! OMG – that’s so something I would do. Totally imagine an entire historical scenario and none of it is even close to real. Oh the human mind!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I shall keep looking for it, you never know it might turn up, or what I prefer is, I have seen in the future and it will happen soon

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marlapaige says:

        The second one is clearly the more likely one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marlapaige says:

        Absolutely. Sometimes, you just know, ya know?

        Liked by 1 person

  4. IMHO (and I speak as a Brit) I think the current UK monarchy borders on child abuse. Why should a child be trapped into a predetermined public role for life by an accident of birth? I would be interested to know how the treatment of Prince George for example rates against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. My preference would be to bring it to a controlled stop as a piece of history and replace it with something like the Irish model: a non-executive president as head of state democratically elected from a shortlist of consenting adults.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You do know one of those consenting adults would be Andrew?

      I have always been curious whether they have been told at an early age as to whether they have a choice, or if duty has been drilled into them from an early age. I think with Charles, it was duty, but with William and George I am not sure,

      Like

      • Haha. I would be very surprised if Andrew made it anywhere near the shortlist!

        By mistake I found myself watching the Platinum Jubilee concert and now and again the camera picked out Prince George who looked thoroughly miserable. It suddenly struck me that that this child had just been through 2 years of Covid restrictions (like everyone else) which would presumably have meant fewer than usual royal engagements. So this could have been his first major public exposure since he was quite a bit younger, and therefore a lot less aware. Maybe I read too much into what I saw on his face but to me it looked like the realisation that this was what his life was going to be like for ever and there was very little he could do about it.

        In the UK we’ve been so used to having the monarchy that it seems to be part of completely normal life. But there’s nothing normal about it. I’m afraid I see it as a monstrous institution which has to perpetuate its monstrosity in order to survive. In this day and age there is no need to single out one family like this just so everyone else can share a weird emotional tingle. IMHO 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think Andrew thinks he should be top of the list.

        I get what you mean about George, but its the youngest child I find more interesting. I have had a few people say to me, they think he might have something that falls under the austism umbrella and it will be interesting to see how the Royal family deal with that if its true

        Like

  5. Carol anne says:

    I wouldnt want one!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.