Skip to comments.Celebrate while you can - the Windsors will be history soon
Posted on 07/28/2013 7:31:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why does everyone assume that the royal baby born last week will one day become King? It seems most unlikely to me that the British Monarchy will last that long.
I am a keen monarchist myself and am sorry that an institution I love and revere is dying. But there is no point in pretending things are better than they are.
What actually holds it up? All the major parties long ago drove the hereditary nobles from the House of Lords. They implicitly accepted that inheritance didnt entitle anyone to any office. It is only a matter of time before that logic takes its final step.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
the muzzies will finish them off
Parasites . Good riddance !
I think they will still keep their title but it might not mean a lot.
I think the Russian Revolution scared the dickens out of Britain’s royalty. I have always believed that is why they passed the severe 1919 gun controls.
No king but Jesus!
I have no sympathy for them at all. The queen took an oath as head of the Anglican Church, and in her recent sickening move, legalizing sodomite sham ‘marriage’, she violated that oath. I mean, when monarchs don’t even keep their oaths, they really are reduced to glorified welfare leeches. The whole establishment leadership of the UK, royal and parliamentary should be overthrown.
How we despise our forebears for bowing and scraping to the aristocracy. But we do the same to rock stars.
Leeds City Council has apologised to Bruce Springsteen for ticketing his tour trucks when they were left on double yellow lines. The tickets were legitimately issued. But thanks to special circumstances they were cancelled.
As far as I can see, the special circumstances were Mr Springsteens celebrity, and his celebrity. Oh, and his fame
President's family costs US 20 times what royal family costs UK
I feel cheated!!!!
Amen to that.
Nobility = Mafia.
Brings in a lot of tourism money. They are worth the investment.
They can continue on for a while if they marry a Bush or Clinton.
Disney doesn’t pay the guy who dresses up as Mickey $100,000,000/year.
They’re German: Vindschorrs!
RE: The queen took an oath as head of the Anglican Church, and in her recent sickening move, legalizing sodomite sham marriage,
Does the oath as head of the Anglican Church require one to never legalize gay marriage?
A long of history reveals the somewhat depressing fact that monarchy is the default. Democracy and republicanism make fleeting appearances in the ancient world, and then again in modern times. But most of the time, in most places, one person or group held all the power, and usually by force. Hitchens is wrong. He doesn’t even pay attention to his own history- after they beheaded Charles I they tried a republic, which failed and became a Puritan dictatorship led by Cromwell. He might have called himself “Lord Protector” but he was as much a king as any. And even after that bout of despotism the English summoned a king. Why? Because it was the default. There was some talk of making George Washington king at the outset of the United States, and a lesser man would have accepted it. Again, when in doubt, some went for the default. The weight of history is against Hitchens’ assertion.
I will say it annoys me a little bit that, for instance, school taxes are based on property assessments yet those that own no property always vote to raise my taxes! NY property taxes are not cheap!
(I must have been the wife of a noble in the House of Lords that owned a large amount of land in a past life!/S)
When I first read the title I thought it said “Windows will be history soon”. Oh well, hope springs eternal!
One day a King will come, and the sword will rise again
I actually can see some benefits from a monarchy but in the Windsors case I think I would take all their riches from them and auction it off. All proceeds would be distributed equally to all citizens.
I would probably let them keep part of their estate in Scotland which is where they seem to want to stay anyway. They could probably make enough off their names and fame so that they would still not have to work. Some of them would also get a military pension.
and some heads are gonna roll roll
As a teacher, I love your profile page.
Yes, we will all live in boxes soon! Shouldn’t be a problem for a Revolting CAT! :)
No doubt that baby will never be poor. But it is a very bizarre life. These royals live in a fishbowl their entire lives. That is simply not normal and must be a severe burden. The men often have military careers probably to feel useful and have some real friendships. IMHO most of them especially Charles wishes they were commoners.
The Monarch’s role as “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”, is not the same as that of (say) the Pope. It’s mainly a safeguard against clerics attempting to depose the monarch. Little direct involvement with church doctrine.
The King and Queen will always be there. A King and Queen bring in multi-millions of dollars from tourists. Britain can’t afford to be without them.
OMG look at that big head on a small body. What the heck did he do to himself?
Thanks! It serves some useful purposes....
Family names are not always translatable, but ‘schor’ means shaved, and ‘vind’ means ‘no definitions found’.
Al’s picture: There is a witch doctor on some lonely South Pacific atoll who has misplaced one of his shrunken heads.
They will have a branch of the Saudi royals ruling Europe
By the time the dynasty ends the Windsors will be wealthy enough that it won’t matter.
By the time ‘’Baby George’’ is ten, fifteen tops, Canterbury Cathedral will be a mosque.
According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfills the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.
Not the best, but he kept his personal honor
The should have done it years ago.
I read where England will be majority Muslim by 2053. It is conceivable that the new heir may become king, but he will be the last Monarch will ever have unless you consider a Muslim Imamocracy a Monarchy.
England did this to herself allowing all those third worlders from former Empire colonies to become British Citizens. Now, they can’t even control that. A large portion of these people go on public sustainment immediately. More children are being born now with the name “Mohammed” than any other. It is just a matter of time.
“But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.”
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
I agree, with the codicil that the default social position for Humanity is not so much Monarchism as Oligarchies. They are not quite the same thing.
How very egalitarian of you. Tell me, how would you remove all their wealth (their personal wealth incidentally) without also setting up a precedent for removing anyones wealth, at anytime, for no other reason than “fairness”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.