Reverse Robin Hood: English 'Queen' tries to steal from the poor

Yeah, just had to post this up. Remind me again why the British put up with this?

I can't imagine living in a country where my taxes went to subsidize the lifestyle of a modern day unelected monarch. I've been hoping that our neighbors across the pond will join the 21st century and do away with the concept of "kings", "queens" and "lords" once she kicks the bucket. Enough stories like this and they may finally do just that. I find it patently offensive that any human being could claim the position of 'head of state' as their birthright.

Spike,

I seriously doubt that your monarch was sitting around filling out forms in a plot to take poor people's heating money, but all the same it's clear that her people thought it was permissible to try. To me the story is a convenient launching point for my larger anti-monarchy thesis, which is why I posted it. I find the very existence of a "queen" (along with the house of lords ETC) offensive, so that's kind of what I'm posting about

However I respect your right to your opinion, and I thank you for sharing. There is a long history between our two nations (longer still, if you're an Irish American.. or an Indian American, or a Kenyan American, etc), so I know there are going to be heated opinions on a subject like this which gets to the very heart of what it means to be British

Mr Bandu:

1) I am talking about Indian Americans whose forbearers originated in the nation of India.*
2) I am talking about Kenyan Americans who forbearers suffered under colonialism in Kenya at the hands of the British
3) The Irish were being tortured and starved by the Brits long before the American revolution

My point was that beyond the history that lead to the American revolution, America is a nation of immigrants and many of us are related to people who suffered at the hands of the British in places other than America. For some Americans, there is more to the bad blood between our people and the English than simply the tea tax and the Boston massacre.
Seeing as how you completely misinterpreted the nature of my post to Spike (and are being very rude and hurtful about it) I think that we're done here

*though on this count you're right that direct British control of India and Keyna did not happen till the 19th century, given the Victorian Genocides ETC, Kenyan/Indian Americans might have a unique perspective on relations with England. I'd initially just mentioned the Irish (because of my Irish heritage), but then I didn't want to look like I was being self centered so I threw in other examples of British colonialism. I should have changed "a longer history" to "a more involved history" though when I made that edit


Spike,

I guess it's just that as an American, a single cent of my paycheck going to support an unelected leader is an affront and an infringement on my freedom. It doesn't matter that the queen can't have you thrown in the stocks, she shouldn't be elevated above any other citizen of your nation. You are all equal and bowing to someone or calling them "your majesty" is offensive to American sensibilities. My nation created the national park, and so the fact that some person has such extensive privaty property holdings for historic buildings and lands because of birthright boggles my mind: such treasures belong to everyone in your nation. I know that some of you'd disagree with that (though from what I understand, there are also UK citizens who'd agree with me), and I respect your right to do so. I'm just offering up my viewpoint.

Thank you for discussing it civilly with me.

Mr Bandu,

Fair points, and you're correct that my statement could have been worded more clearly. Often times when I post from work, I end up writing in little 15-30 second bursts because various tasks keep popping up that require my attention and distract me from CHUD. This can lead to a disjointed train of thought (my posts from home are usually much more literate, IMHO), and I apologize if it lead my posting to lack clarity.

I feel very strongly about the whole monarchy issue, but I also love the CHUD-munity(c) and don't want to offend my fellow Chewers. I am doing my utmost to try and keep my tone respectful while discussing the subject.

Anyway, I do read over my posts, but on that one I guess it slipped by me. BTW, calling me a moron was not what I considered rude, but whatever, let's move on. Glad we can disagree vehemently about something without long lasting hard feelings.

Ken, thanks for weighing in. You're correct: you and I have discussed this before. While the picture you paint of the Monarchy's power is accurate, that doesn't really change my feelings about the whole thing. Anyway, I am glad we can politely agree to disagree.

@Neoolong: 'Reverse Robin Hood' is just catchy and sounded pleasantly alliterative when I was on my lunch break and posting. I acknowledged that QE2 probably had little to nothing to do with the decision to apply for that money. However, as I stated, the fact that her people tried to sign her up for free heating (from a fund that is designed to help the poor) speaks volumes about what they consider permissible and what they feel they are entitled to. How about these millionaires pay their own bills, or otherwise leave their castle if they can't afford to heat it?* That's how normal human beings live, and I reject the notion that royalty is inherently better or more deserving of government help than a poor person is.

@ Hundred: My understanding is that she gets upwards of sixty million pounds a year -- free -- as a salary for being born.

British Chewers can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Now, there is the argument that she generates revenue via tourism.. however, if her palaces were turned over to the public and set up for 24/7 all access walking tours ETC, I doubt tourism would suddenly die off.. if anything, it might increase. The Breakers mansion in New Port generates far more revenue as a museum than it did when it was home of the Vanderbilts. The money that stands to be made or lost with the elimination of the monarchy is ultimately a non essential concern IMHO; there is a moral principal involved. 'All (people) are created equal'

@ Zhukov: I don't support subsidizing the mega rich or multinational corporations either.

*which no one in this situation is claiming. She has plenty of money, her aides just thought she shouldn't have to pay for it I guess

I don't particularly care about who pays the heating bills once the royals pack up and leave, but the palaces and royal estates are part of England's cultural heritage and should be preserved for that reason. They belong to the English people, and it would make sense for the citizens of the UK to pay for the heating bills. If they didn't want to do that though then they could certainly move to defund the heating with a vote on the matter

It does not make sense for private citizens to not be allowed a choice as to whether or not they should be forced to fund the luxurious lifestyles of people who expect special treatment because of their parentage. In any other walk of life, expecting money and privilege because of who your ancestors were is a kind of bigotry.

And who are these royales that they are deserving of, no, entitled to the money of people who have no say in the matter? Saintly selfless civil servants? Or the sort of thuggish aristocrats who wear nazi uniforms for giggles and make racist jokes about the very "commoners" who have sworn to defend the crown with their lives?

Oh, they also mock the disabled too, as if they weren't caddish and out of touch enough already.

EDIT: So, anyway, I see nothing hypocritical about my stand on this matter, however, I've now explained my take to the best of my ability so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm just an observer from across the pond, and ultimately it's up to the UK to sort this whole thing out. As someone who also had an ancestor on the Mayflower, I guess I just can't help but tend to feel more passionately about the monarchy situation in Britain than I do about, say, the royal family of Monaco lol. Americans have a complex and storied relationship with the UK, so there are bound to be strong opinions on both sides of the argument

My use of scare quotes was supposed to ironic, though I guess in fairness no one other than myself could be expected to know that

I'm also from Berkshire County! How delightful. Here though we have virtually no accent to speak of.

I am not certain I am familiar with that sitaution, I'm afraid! What specifically are you refering to?

Good points, though I'll just say that the president has actual duties that he needs to attend to, and couldn't go take a vacation to fight a war. Also, the President couldn't disappear without the press asking where he was. He could not publicly fight in a theater of war without imperiling our nation. He could be kidnapped or killed.

The UK yanked Harry out as soon as it was known that he was there. The President could never even get there in secret in the first place

There is no American equivalent of the Royale Family. Harry is not Barack Obama's equal.
Fair enough, don't know enough about the situation to refute that. As I've stated though, IMHO money shouldn't be the most important factor when deciding the future of the Royal family
I trust you!

Can any little girl grow up to be queen, though?


That character was "Dr Laura", and it was a meeting of talk radio personalities that was taking place when she slighted the President. "In this house, when the President stands.. nobody sits".
Some irreplaceable historical treasures were ruined. For a population that had to endure the blitz, I think you'd be more understanding of the kind of loss that occurred (or maybe not given how Parliament and Buckingham Palace survived intact?)

I'm not actively pissed. I am friends with British people (one even tried to get me excited about Cricket the other week!). I hold no resentments towards modern day Britons, but when it comes to a discussion of the past, I want to make sure that stuff like the potato famine or the Victorian genocides are not swept under the rug. I feel like I owe that to my ancestors. Fair enough?

I live within miles of the Bennington Battle Monument and live in the state that basically started the revolution. People around here have long memories. It's NEW England, after all.

As well you should be (IMHO). You're your own nation, or at least, you would be if she deigned to allow you to officially break all ties

PS In general though, I think you have great money. I love your dimes! (well, the obverse side at least)


Right you are. I'm no fan of the Bushes, but credit where credit is due

You're telling me you've never heard of the Victorian Genocides? Is this the UK's equivalent of the Japanese phenomena where their text books omit Nanking?

FYI, Spike: The Victorian Genocides

As you might guess from the fact that "The Victorian GenocideS" is plural, your people also genocided Kenyans along with other populations as well

Haha, exactly. Just my way to try to bring a bit of lightness to the topic when I broke the news to Spike about the Victorian Genocides. I didn't want to look like I was being overly angry towards him, so I deployed unorthodox vocabulary

A Futurama reference! Hooray

JM,

One of the very first fights I got into when I joined CHUD was over the genocide perpetrated against the native peoples of this continent. It's despicable what happened to them, and Hitler got the inspiration for his concentration camps from Indian Reservations. I've previously endorsed extensive reparations for the indians, and have suggested the creation of an indian only body of congress to be created to replace the Senate

So yeah, I don't let us off the hook for one minute... But I don't like seeing the Victorian Genocides swept under the rug either

Hitler was a big fan of Western fiction and history (he was a cowboys and indians nut), and he himself cited the indian reservation as a model to emulate.

Also, CAPITAL LETTERS! NAME CALLING! BLARG!

Spike, the word genocide was not yet invented in the 19th century, but that doesn't make starving 30 million people to death (or hacking them apart with bayonets and machetes on a mass scale) in order to make a profit any less monstrous. I'm not going to argue about the semantics of the word genocide with you.