[B0ycey]

In my view it's just a combination of personal dislike and narrow minded application of theoretical principles, which somehow turn into a feeling of moral superiority. Not dissimilar to the resistance in the US who imagine themselves fighting the Trump tyranny.

How is it narrow minded to be against supporting someone being born into power? The fact that their power is only ceremonial, to me gives greater support that they are a idea/concept of a bygone era that shouldn't be supported in todays society than less as they do even less for their handouts then before. They no longer are required for a modern democracy. It is that simple.

Nonetheless, for you to say that about anti-monarchists is the same as Republicans saying that in their opinion monarchists are romanticists who dream of becoming a princess one day. There are a number of reasons why people are against the monarchy. For me I am anti born privilege. For sure, the Lord's are more of an issue to me than the Windsors. I will accept that. But that still doesn't mean I will forget about the tax dodging, hand out taking Windsors for the sakes of continuity.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

How is it narrow minded to be against supporting someone being born into power? The fact that their power is only ceremonial, to me gives greater support that they are a idea/concept of a bygone era that shouldn't be supported in todays society than less as they do even less for their handouts then before. They no longer are required for a modern democracy. It is that simple.

As I said at the very beginning of this thread and repeated several times in many different ways, it's pedantic and needlessly divisive to insist on changing a political system that delivers on all democratic measures that actually matter to people's lives when compared with republics. I call people who insist on this change narrow minded because they are clearly not concerned with actual practical outcomes, but solely focused on a principle which only matters in theory.

Nonetheless, for you to say that about anti-monarchists is the same as Republicans saying that in their opinion monarchists are romanticists who dream of becoming a princess one day. There are a number of reasons why people are against the monarchy. For me I am anti born privilege. For sure, the Lord's are more of an issue to me than the Windsors. I will accept that. But that still doesn't mean I will forget about the tax dodging, hand out taking Windsors for the sakes of continuity.

Now you are back to "hand outs" for which there is no good evidence. Talk about being resistant to facts.

I've touched upon some of the additional benefits of constitutional monarchies earlier in this thread which go beyond simple continuity and the fact that they are at the very least not inferior to republics.

Moreover, I also consider this a fight against change for change's sake. Much like "diversity", change seems to have become a value itself and something for people who consider themselves open minded to rally around. We ought to see this as the self-congratulatory nonsense that it is and get back to proponents of change actually having to show the benefits of their proposal.

[Politiks]

The Royal Family has nothing to do with cultural Marxism but the Church of England who invited him to speak is defiantly part of the liberal multicultural elites.

The same Church of England who thinks boys should wear tiaras, heels and tutu's. Those sadistic pedos will get theirs one day...well, I hope they do

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... of-england