Members of royal families are:

[Gary73 10]

Doesn't it have to be either 1 or 2? And if it's 2, why do so many people still fawn over them?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[davjohns 1]

They have been many things over the years. Sometimes many thing within one lineage.

Monarchy is a form of government. If done properly, it could be a pretty good form. Someone who is raised specifrically for the purpose of leading and taught the requisite skills is not such a bad idea. There just need to be safeguards in place to prevent abuse; Just like any other form of government.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gary73 10]

Sorry; can't buy that. By their very nature, monarchies deny the people the right to choose their own leaders, and are therefore inherently wrong.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Baksteen 84]

Making way too much money.

Usually this begets some bullshit "but a presidency costs a lot of money too"-argument, but way I see it, keep the royalty but cut WAY the fuck back on their pocket money.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[BillyVance 34]

Usually daily fodder for news media and the butt of endless jokes by the population or other countries when they do something questionable or stupid.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Remster 27]

Quote

Monarchy is a form of government. If done properly, it could be a pretty good form. Someone who is raised specifrically for the purpose of leading and taught the requisite skills is not such a bad idea.

Well, not really.

All the western world's monarchies are pretty much ceremonial only.

Remster

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

...something else (please explain).

...too inbred. Maybe less so than in the past; but they could use a few more cabana boys named Julio in the mix.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

...something else (please explain).

...too inbred. Maybe less so than in the past; but they could use a few more cabana boys named Julio in the mix.

Actually, there were many instances of members of one country's royal family marrying members of another country's royal family.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...something else (please explain).

...too inbred. Maybe less so than in the past; but they could use a few more cabana boys named Julio in the mix.

Actually, there were many instances of members of one country's royal family marrying members of another country's royal family.

Yeah; they were constantly marrying between a handful of European families; thus, inbred. For example, early 20th Century: The Russian Czar's family, the Kaiser Wilhelm's family and the British Windsor royal families are all cousins of each other. The Russian royal family had a history of haemophilia - a disease quite rare because it generally appears on recessive genes. Combine too many similar recessive genes, and you've got an increased risk of genetically-transmitted disorders.

[skyrider 0]

Who streeched the page?

anyway...just dumb fucks lucky enough to be born into royalty...inbreed if anything!

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

I'm on AOL, this is the first time it happened here!

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

I'm on AOL, this is the first time it happened here!

I believe AOL uses IE for the built-in browser. May be mistaken.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

I'm on AOL, this is the first time it happened here!

I believe AOL uses IE for the built-in browser. May be mistaken.

I was just gonna say that, so if you're mistaken, I am, too.

To Skyrider:

AOL blows moose-peckers. I speak from experience. If, for whatever technical reasons, you absolutely MUST sign on to AOL to get internet access, I'd advise one to do the following:
-Download Firefox onto your computer.
-Thereafter, sign on to AOL to get online, but then - instead of using AOL's internet browser, access the Net thru Firefox.

On the other hand, if you don't need to use the AOL software to get internet access on your computer, then don't use it at all. Just download and use Firefox. If you have your e-mail account thru AOL, you can always access it on Firefox (or any other brand's browser) by going to www.aol.com, and loggin on to your mail account from there.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Sorry; can't buy that. By their very nature, monarchies deny the people the right to choose their own leaders, and are therefore inherently wrong.

There's an open minded point of view for you

there's more than one way to govern a population.
A Monarchist Democracy is one and apparently it works pretty well, at least in all the countries that i have visited.
In fact the peoples who (at present) seem to be coping the worst in the current economic climate are you lot.
NZ OZ and UK are doing a bit better Canada too i suspect. all of which are Monarchist Democracies

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Gary73 10]

Quote

There's an open minded point of view for you

There's a difference between being narrow-minded and having thought about a matter long enough to have reached a firm conclusion. I don't need to think about whether 1 + 1 = 2 or whether a government derives the right to govern from the people.

Quote

there's more than one way to govern a population.
A Monarchist Democracy is one and apparently it works pretty well, at least in all the countries that i have visited.
In fact the peoples who (at present) seem to be coping the worst in the current economic climate are you lot.
NZ OZ and UK are doing a bit better Canada too i suspect. all of which are Monarchist Democracies

The governments you refer to are, I believe, more properly termed "constitutional monarchies", since the monarchs are restricted by laws imposed on them by the people, starting with the Magna Carta.

But either way, the question is: "By what right do monarchs rule over their subjects?". Monarchs can't be voted out of office, so they don't get that right from the people. And If they don't derive that right from God, then they're just hereditary dictators with unusually good public-relations people. And how did these families establish and maintain their positions? Mostly with violence, treachery, and distinctly unholy alliances with whatever religion was most powerful at that time and place.

Oh, WRT the current economic problems, those are mainly the result of greed and poorly thought-out government policies, problems which happen pretty much independently of time, place, and form of govenrment, unfortunately.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Sorry; can't buy that. By their very nature, monarchies deny the people the right to choose their own leaders, and are therefore inherently wrong.

OK folks. Look at what I said. Monarchy IS a form of government that has servede humanity well at times. It can be constitutional as one person pointed out, but does not have to be (see Nepal for a recent example). Many monarchies have been extremely popular and still are.

And as to the quote above - if you think you choose the president in the good old US of A, please do some research on the electoral college. It was created just to make sure us peasants can be set on the true path by the elites if we get it wrong.

I love the US. But our founding fathers said repeatedly that the government we put together here was not perfect and never will be.

Communism works in small communities in Israel and other places. Monarchies have worked and ares till working throughout the world. No form of government is inherently good or evil. Those qualities come from the people who run it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Skyrad 0]

Why are some Americans so obsessed with our Royal family?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

Why are some Americans so obsessed with our Royal family?

because they have a hard time understanding the concept of a royal family as they follow every step in the life of Octomom on twitter and facebook.

[Rick 67]

Quote

AOL blows moose-peckers. I speak from experience. [ reply]


Are you a Moose

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

It's streeeetched on my Firefox too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,853]

Quote

And If they don't derive that right from God, then they're just hereditary dictators with unusually good public-relations people. And how did these families establish and maintain their positions? Mostly with violence, treachery, and distinctly unholy alliances with whatever religion was most powerful at that time and place.
.

You make them sound like GOP politicians.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who streeched the page?
!

Switch to Firefox; it doesn't do that shit as much as IE. IE is a pain in the balls to be on here with.

It's streeeetched on my Firefox too.

Hm, you know what? It's because of the poll.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Doesn't it have to be either 1 or 2? And if it's 2, why do so many people still fawn over them?

It seems that a few centuries ago it was simply taken for granted in many countries that you would have a king/queen. There were assumed to be no other options. A few centuries still earlier even the queen option didn't exist.

It seems to me that, looking at history, there were a wide range of scenarios as to how the throne passed from one monarch--ie one king--to the next. Sometimes, indeed, one thug died or was killed by another thug and the new thug took over. Sometimes the throne passed quite peacefully from father to son. Sometimes there was no son or an underage son and there was much political intrigue--but little physical violence--regarding the succession. Sometimes the next person in line, according to the rules, was determined to be a foreigner from an enemy nation and the rules were still followed faithfully and the foreigner gracefully granted the throne. Sometimes not.

The fact that there were clear rules of succession and a great deal of training that went into preparing a son to take over his father's job suggests to me that, while people were well aware that physical violence was always a possible factor in determining the new king, they were also aware that it was far from an optimal solution. It also suggests that aging kings cared--in general if not in all individual cases--what happened to their kingdoms after they died.

In short, monarchy is a system of government which has/had its better and its not so good moments. Judging the system of monarchy by its more thuggish moments strikes me as a bit like judging 200+ years of American democracy solely on its worst moments like Watergate or the 2000 election.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Gary73 10]

Some good points, but the violence and treachery I was referring to was the kind that was perpetrated by the royalty upon the peasants in order to get and keep power.

What I keep asking here, and what no one has even tried to answer, is not how good the leadership is or how smooth the successions are, but rather the most fundamental question that can be asked of any government: "Who made you the boss of everybody?".

In America, the answer is that really big "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution. In other times and places the royalty has claimed that some divine being has appointed them to be the leaders, after which they promptly killed anyone who said otherwise.

So if you believe that royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan