7 dead 16 wounded at attack on Dutch queensday.

[polaris]

Well he should do what royals do . . .

Okay . . . what are royals?

people born into a job they don't necessarily want, with immense pressure on them to do that job in often unfathomably difficult conditions. The money , annually a tiny amount in comparison to your daily defence expenditure, helps them live the life the majority of their subjects expect them to live, they do have rather big houses to keep. The British royal family head up a government that has every right to abolish them, they have no power and to be honest arent supposed to even express opinion in any debate.
You make the welfare comparison often , they're not on welfare, they work, if the amount is extravagant to you, hmm guess what, everyone thinks lawyers charge too much money, will you work for minimum wage or will you accept that different jobs pay differently when it's a case of you earning more than others do. Because it is a job so they get paid.  In a society where so many need help from charity the face of a royal will generate way more revenue than they could ever raise. Foreign contracts are secured by royal visits and tourism brings in way more than they cost. I'm no fan of royalty but many are, i personally dont agree with any tiers in a society but in our current society they're the last of anyones concerns.

To the Dutch guys, was really sorry to read about the incident , I've been to a queens day party that was held in London and could really see what the day meant to you all, I hope you can put the incident behind you and enjoy queens day in the future.

[shmokes]

people born into a job they don't necessarily want, with immense pressure on them to do that job in often unfathomably difficult conditions.

Raising my right eyebrow right now.  Really really high.  Unfathomably difficult conditions?  Just what are they doing, having tea with foreign dignitaries and not sure how many lumps to put in?  What am I missing here?

As for a job they don't want, what's gonna happen if they reject it?  Will they go to jail?  And what exactly does their job require of them?  For example, I read in one BBC article that Prince Charles' went to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji by chartered plane that cost £300,000 ($600k).  Was he ordered to make that trip?  Or does he unilaterally get to decide what he does and when and how?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be paid more than others.  I'm going to leave law school with $120k worth of debt that I've invested in my brain to prepare me for the practice of law.  It would be absurd to suggest that the services I am able to provide are not more valuable than, say, waiting tables.  It's also worth noting that if, like the Royals, I'm being paid by tax dollars (district attorney's office, for example) I'm only paid about like school teachers are paid.  Like $40k/yr..  But anyway, I fail to see how the Royals have similarly qualified themselves for their positions.

[patrickl]

A five day self promotion tour of Bush visiting Africa cost roughly $125 millon and you complain about Prince Charles bringing a diplomatic visit to the Tsunami stricken region where the travel expenses are £300K?

BTW Sarkozy went to China a while ago. In his wake French industries closed economic deals with the Chinese at the tune of tens billions of euros. Obviously the dutch industry doesnt have that much to offer, but still, the queen helps in deals worth billions too. That alone is worth having a royal family. A president could do the same, but the royal family does this a lot cheaper.

[polaris]

shmokes
I don't deny they live a life of luxury, but I wouldn't want to swap. Having to comfort the population hours after my mother was killed in a car crash, as a teenager, no thanks, trying to do the decent thing for my country and joining the army as many of the boys do only to have my face and location plastered on papers putting my colleagues at risk in Afghanistan. Many of the royal family work extremely hard , have an extreme sense of honour and duty bred into them and know they would be upsetting the country if they stepped down( I'm sure it wouldn't be as much of an effect as the days when the king abdicated but still)  they would still live in the same luxury if they did as they couldnt just move and get a job so it's publicly better for them to carry on being a royal and fading into the background a bit like harry is trying to do with his army career cos he blatantly hates his royalty. They are realistically struggling from being outdated in our society the press exposes the negative too much but hey our whole society Is out of date.
Genuinely I see their lives as ones of great sacrifice that I don't envy, they don't have the freedom I do.
It is prince Charles job to travel the world,to go to dinners and events,and he is very loyal to his subjects and genuinely interested in them, it's ludicrous ,but beyond question or rationalization , his job is to be king and because of that he lives like a king, how else could it be. As far as being ordered to make the trip, yes, most of his life is decided for him. 

[shmokes]

his job is to be king and because of that he lives like a king, how else could it be.  

The answer to that, of course, is to stop having kings.  France seems to be managing okay without them.  And they even manage a healthy tourism business at Versailles and the Louvre after all these years. 

I can see the reason in what you're saying, that not everything about being a royal is great and in many ways the Royals are in a difficult position, but most of that stuff only supports the idea that royalty is outdated and should be done away with entirely -- something that I gather you actually agree with.

[patrickl]

Yeah, it's outdated and other countries do fine without it. Yet there are lots of countries that do fine with it. I say even better, but that's not really the point. A royal family is a resonably cheap way to get an ambassador that foreign countries actually notice. The US wastes a lot more money on your president to give him some sort of royal appearance.

The royal family:
- "opens doors"
- helps sell our old military crap
- helps Dutch businesses sell their stuff
- helps the Dutch foreign minister to actually accomplish things
- creates good relationships with the countries she vists
- draws tourists
- inspires the nation
- gives us a free day every year
- provides a stable political climate
- and much more

She's easily worth the cost. If she didn't have the palaces and some political powers she would have her status and then she would stop being effective. Especially for a country that's basically a city, there is no other way we could achieve her level of influence and power from a mundane civil servant that needs to be brushed up to look cool. We don't have the money to give him a fleet of aircraft and let him hand out iPods and DVD collections.

I'd say just the stable political climate is worth it to me. I really wouldn't like presidential elections and their polarizing effects. I can only imagine the horror of living in a society where almost everybody is either "red" or "blue" and news items are purposefully twisted to fit the agenda of one of these colors. Overhere we're all "orange".

Of course if the royal family was a bunch of morons this wouldn't work. That's where the "she's technically elected" comes in. If enough people want to get rid of them we can "vote them out". So far the queen does a great job and her son seems like an intelligent and dedicated guy too. As long as they serve their purpose they stay.

[shmokes]

I agree with you about the two-party system.  Of course, having a president doesn't imply a two-party system.  See Germany or France, for example.

As for getting things done, it's just nonsense (they do get things done, but it doesn't change much).  Do you really think doors are opened more when Obama meets with the Queen of England than when he meets with the prime minister of England?  I'm not saying that nothing is accomplished by these visits, but nothing is accomplished that wouldn't be accomplished by sending the head of state regardless of whether the person is Royal.  Other countries aren't deciding to make bad trade deals with you because they were enamored with your Queen.  They make the deals cos it's in their best interest and they will deal with whomever has the authority to make the deal.

I think there's truth to the "inspires the nation" stuff, but I think there are probably lots of people in your country who find them decidedly not inspriring, just like me.  And I doubt that your country is any more inspired on the whole than countries without royalty, ya know what I mean?

But whatever.  It's seriously not that big a deal.  I think they're useless, you think they're useful.  I think they're a waste of money, you think they're worth it. 

BTW, you must be in a tight spot if your country doesn't have the money for the Royals to give out a 25-disc DVD collection or an iPod.  Those are things that even regular individuals can afford in my country.   

[patrickl]

Other countries aren't deciding to make bad trade deals with you because they were enamored with your Queen.  They make the deals cos it's in their best interest and they will deal with whomever has the authority to make the deal.

The queen coming over creates an atmosphere where business is conducted. High ranking people become available and getting in touch with the right people is like 80% of the sale.

Sure this could be done with a president too. Like I said, Sarkozy went to China and during that visit they sold 30 billion worth of planes and nuclear plants. On the other hand, a Queen carries a lot more clout than the president (or prime minister) of a "city".

What baffles me is that you go off your rocker about the relatively modest investment that we put in our royal families, but you seem completely unperturbed about the cost of maintaining Obama which are probably 10 times as high. Why wouldn't that be equally (if not more) ridiculous? Is that ok because he has a "real" job? Why does Obama even travel to other countries if it's so useless and some minion (or an e-mail) could do the same? Presentation doesn't matter after all.

[Grasshopper]

I'm not in favour of the Royal Family by any stretch. However, Patrick does have a valid point. The British Queen spends a lot of her time visiting obscure countries around the world purely for the purposes of generating goodwill.

All she basically does on her visits is watch ethnic dancing, wave to a lot of people, shake a lot of hands etc. (i.e. no actual decisions have to be made). If she weren't available to fulfill that role then presumably we'd have to send a real politician instead. But real politicians shouldn't be wasting their time on such fluff. They should be attending to the far more important business of running the country.

Anyway, I'm sort of acting as devil's advocate here because, on balance, I'm not really in favour of the Royal Family (although I don't feel very strongly about it).

[shmokes]

So you have somone who travels to the country to watch this stuff and generate goodwill.  Why does this person have palaces and 1000 acre estates and fly on private jets and live in the lap of luxury?  I mean, the fact that they serve some kind of purpose is no answer to that question.  The local postman serves a governmental purpose. 

The US very much has people who serve this purpose.  The secretary of state.  The secretary of commerce.  The Vice President.  The first lady.  But none of these people are in this bizarre situation where you're like, "Okay, for no articulable reason, from now until eternity you and all of your decendants (and ONLY you and your decendents) get to do this job and we will give you obscene amounts of riches for it -- far far more then we give even to the leader of our country."

[patrickl]

Why does this person have palaces and 1000 acre estates and fly on private jets and live in the lap of luxury?  I mean, the fact that they serve some kind of purpose is no answer to that question.

Why does Obama get this level of luxury?

[patrickl]

Anyway, I'm sort of acting as devil's advocate here because, on balance, I'm not really in favour of the Royal Family (although I don't feel very strongly about it).

Doesn't matter if you feel it's ridiculous that people get handed their role by birth or whatever legitimate complaints people have against a monarchy. The point is, they do serve a purpose. Maybe more so in the Netherlands than in the UK though. On the other hand, to be honest I wouldn't even know what the current UK PM looks like. I'm pretty sure a visit from Charles (let alone the Queen) would have a lot more impact.

[ChadTower]

I'm not in favour of the Royal Family by any stretch. However, Patrick does have a valid point. The British Queen spends a lot of her time visiting obscure countries around the world purely for the purposes of generating goodwill.

Is that before or after subjugating the native population and annexing the area as a colony? 

[shmokes]

Why does Obama get this level of luxury?

For the same reason that the CEO of a large corporation gets to live in luxury.  We want to attract good candidates.  It's by far the most important job in the country (and one of the most difficult).  But this is all a red herring anyway.  I never said that I approve of every presidential expense.  The best you can get out of this argument is a big two wrongs = a right.  And even then the differences between the two positions are so vast that you don't even get that.

[ChadTower]

We want to attract good candidates.  

And yet we totally, completely, and entirely fail to attract good candidates.  Ever.

[patrickl]

The best you can get out of this argument is a big two wrongs = a right.

No, I say it serves a purpose in both cases.

[shmokes]

Yeah, patrick, that's how the two wrongs = a right argument works.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, patrick, that's how the two wrongs = a right argument works.

Not if they wrongs aren't wrong.  You don't get to define that any more than he does.

[polaris]

his job is to be king and because of that he lives like a king, how else could it be.  

The answer to that, of course, is to stop having kings.  France seems to be managing okay without them.  And they even manage a healthy tourism business at Versailles and the Louvre after all these years. 

I can see the reason in what you're saying, that not everything about being a royal is great and in many ways the Royals are in a difficult position, but most of that stuff only supports the idea that royalty is outdated and should be done away with entirely -- something that I gather you actually agree with.

but we obviously want a king so we accept that we fund their public duties, they are wealthy anyway, they like many in the past stole what they have and one of them made themselves king, the queen inherited her wealth from her dad not the amount we pay them to do the job we ask them to do.
you know i dont agree with it but then i dont think obama should get more than you or the cleaner, and i only defend their position in our current society not any society that i would propose.
i dont know how to explain to you why someone so red as me could be forgiving of them apart from they have helped shape and do reach far into our societies and communities and are a large part of what makes us british, not something i know many here will see the positive in but there are things that make me proud of being british.
they are just part of our society which is crumbling around us , we dont as a country want to throw a large part of our identity away.

[shmokes]

Yeah, patrick, that's how the two wrongs = a right argument works.

Not if they wrongs aren't wrong.  You don't get to define that any more than he does.

It doesn't matter who defines it.  Two rights don't make a right either.  Giving the royal family a bunch of palaces and estates in which to live and play, and all kinds of other extravagances is either right or wrong (or neither) regardless of whether the US engages in similar practices.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," illustrates a logical flaw in the type of argument patrick is making.  The logical flaw exists whether Patrick is ultimately right or not, or whether neither of us is right.

The point I'm making is that Patrick's comparisons to Obama are a red herring, both because the office of the US President is so dissimilar to that of a queen in a modern-day democracy, and because, as mentioned above, two wrongs don't make a right.  If the practices are right, they are so for reasons independent of the mere fact that both countries do similar things.

[shmokes]

there are things that make me proud of being british.

And I can see that.  However, I might suggest that historically they have often been a rather negative party of your society which probably explains why they are virtually powerless today, and why the whole concept of nobles, etc., is gone (I think it is, anyway?).  Just look at the Sherrif of Nottingham!!!   

I am just predisposed to viewing appeals to tradition with a great deal of suspicion.  I think they are often made in order to prop up bad things that can't otherwise be defended (see separate but equal,  bible reading and corporal punishment in schools, disenfranchisment of women, gay marriage, etc.)

And hey, no need to worry about your national pride suffering for getting rid of the Royalty.  Just look at France.   

[ChadTower]

It doesn't matter who defines it.  

Sure it does.  Your point (two wrongs != right) is a red herring in the absence of any wrongs. 

[polaris]

there are things that make me proud of being british.

And I can see that.  However, I might suggest that historically they have often been a rather negative party of your society which probably explains why they are virtually powerless today, and why the whole concept of nobles, etc., is gone (I think it is, anyway?).  Just look at the Sherrif of Nottingham!!!   

I am just predisposed to viewing appeals to tradition with a great deal of suspicion.  I think they are often made in order to prop up bad things that can't otherwise be defended (see separate but equal,  bible reading and corporal punishment in schools, disenfranchisment of women, gay marriage, etc.)

And hey, no need to worry about your national pride suffering for getting rid of the Royalty.  Just look at France.   

well france had their revolution in which they brought down their aristocracy but we are too down the road for the guillotine. you know i ultimately agree with your views on people having favoured birthrights, but to me thats a whole other issue that having a president doesn't address. theyre entirely politically powerless but do have influence socially and societally, theyre a museum piece to me that costs us to maintain and yes also represent hideous parts of our history, but generally if you look at our history weve been a bunch of ---daisies--- really as a conquering and enslaving nation. people in britain are desperately holding on to the great in great britain but we havent been great for 100 years really and then we werent actually great we were powerful and shat on people.
our society is changing so fast the royals cant keep up like the examples you gave, but are trying to act more akin to current feeling by being less indulgent.
 i can remember as a child royal events like the wedding of charles and diana being massive events hell dianas death stopped the country for a week, its just something that unifies the country like july the whatsit for you, the history is sketchy but we need things to feel good about in todays world, i wont watch the queens speech on christmas day cos im such a commie but hell i hope theres a wedding or something so my daughter can have a street party like i experienced,
really why get rid of them, they dont cost that much, they dont affect politics so why change the silly bits of our parliament, its just the showbiz side of it, and we spunk loads of cash on ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- rather than helping the needy so yknow things need to change but not just them and id put them far down the list
im gonna stop now we'll pick this up in pnr no doubt sometime and i dont want this thread sent there cos of me
 

[Ed_McCarron]

It's time for her son to become king.

Why should he be king?  What's so great about him?

Some moistened bent lobbed a scimitar at him.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

[shmokes]

It doesn't matter who defines it.  

Sure it does.  Your point (two wrongs != right) is a red herring in the absence of any wrongs. 

Sigh . . .  Chad, you just haven't thought this through.  It's not a mathematical formula that you actually apply to a situation to determine whether a right does not exist.  It's a play on words (2 negatives = positive) to point out the logical flaw of defending the rightness of an action by pointing to someone else who did/does the same thing (which is obviously irrelevant).  It might reveal hypocrisy, but it doesn't affect the rightness of the action.

Patrick is using the two wrongs make a right argument to establish the rightness of the actions.  I said that royalty is wrong because of x, y and z and he responded, "Look, Obama does some of the very same things."  That's two wrongs make a right.  Just like if you tell your youngest kid that he's not supposed to take cookies from the jar without asking first and he responds by pointing out that his older brother does it all the time.  Of course your son isn't suggesting that what he is doing is wrong, but that when literally combined with his older brother's wrong it mathematically produces a right.  He's saying, "How can what I'm doing be wrong when my older brother does the very same thing and hasn't got in trouble?"  A person guilty of the fallacy is ALWAYS defending the rightness of his actions.  That's the whole point, isn't it?

[danny_galaga]

i'm not a big fan of royal families, but in their defence european (including UK) royals generate their own income. it's true they get some money from the public purse, and they hold some public assets, but by and large they aren't a HUGE drain on society. kinda pointless, but not a huge burden. besides, most of them are supreme diplomats (other than prince phillip) which is of some benefit to a country...

[shmokes]

Polaris, a lot of that stuff actually resonates with me and got me questioning why I am so offended by the notion of royalty, but not other nonsense that the government pays for (like holidays).  For example, shutting down the country for 4th of July or Christmas or President's day has major financial costs for society, but I totally support these things because they make people happy.  And, of course they also generate tons of economic activity that probably outweighs the fact that everything is closed for the holiday, but for the sake of argument let's just pretend that they are a net financial drain on society. 

I think what it really comes down to is that to me the royals represent just about the most evil thing in society -- it is the overt statement that all men are not created equal.  Some are better than others, by birth.  And I'm just kind of hard core in this area.  I believe that with a few exceptions, a person's entire estate should escheat to the state when he dies.  I don't believe in inherited political power, and I feel just as strongly about inherited economic power (in fact I think the two are practically the same thing anyway).  So to be honest, while I think that the Royals are an enormous waste of money, and that they don't deserve what they have, it is really the idea they represent that I find so repugnant.  And I think that is why I get so antagonistic about it.

But whatev.  I'm over it.   



edit: pronoun troubles

[patrickl]

Patrick is using the two wrongs make a right argument to establish the rightness of the actions.  I said that royalty is wrong because of x, y and z and he responded, "Look, Obama does some of the very same things."  That's two wrongs make a right.

No I'm not using a two wrongs makes a right. I made two arguments:
1) You whine about a 300K bill for Prince Charles when Bush cost $125 million on a similar (by your definition probably "useless") trip.
2) I ask you to think WHY Obama gets the deluxe life in the hope that you will finally think things through and understand that it serves a purpose.

I guess you could misunderstand the first as a "two wrongs" argument, but it's more my astonishment that you are so appalled about the cost of the royals when they are not that expensive at all.

The second argument has no "two wrongs" element at all. I tried following the argument you had with Chad, but I really don't see how you can claim that I was making a two wrongs argument. Especially when I literally said that I didn't and Chad also pointed this out to you.

BTW being antagonistic about something doesn't mean that you cannot acknowlegde that a it serves a purpose or that it actually works. There is also no need to lie or repeat misinformed opinions. Our Queen works harder than Bush ever did. OK maybe that doesn't say much, but still. You can call her diplomatic, marketing and inspirational work useless, but it's the full time job that she does.

[patrickl]

Anyway, yesterday another person died from her injuries. Luckily her 14 year old daughter did survive and was able to leave the hospital. I think the 8 year old girl is out of the hospital too.

Oddly enough the people who died were all reasonably old. The 46 year old leady who died yesterday was the youngest. The others vary in age between 50 and 71 years old.

[ChadTower]

Sigh . . .  Chad, you just haven't thought this through.  

Once again, he assumes that because someone disagrees, it can only be the result of lack of comprehension of his brilliance.  It's useless trying to discuss anything with this guy.

Yes, we all know two wrongs do not mathematically equate to a right.   

[Grasshopper]

I think what it really comes down to is that to me the royals represent just about the most evil thing in society -- it is the overt statement that all men are not created equal.  Some are better than others, by birth.  And I'm just kind of hard core in this area.  I believe that with a few exceptions, a person's entire estate should escheat to the state when he dies.  I don't believe in inherited political power, and I feel just as strongly about inherited economic power (in fact I think the two are practically the same thing anyway).

You can add citizenship to that list. Simply being born in a wealthy country given a person a massive head start in life.

[nuka1195]

I believe that with a few exceptions, a person's entire estate should escheat to the state when he dies.  I don't believe in inherited political power, and I feel just as strongly about inherited economic power (in fact I think the two are practically the same thing anyway).

i couldn't disagree more. might as well not have capitalism and just give all money to the state. spread the wealth and we can all live rich no matter our productivity. please start with hollywood first.

[Justin Z]

A true hallmark of a feeble mind is being unable to step back from what you've been raised to think and realize "this is ridiculous".

Ahahahaha this is probably the most hilariously unintentionally ironic thing I've ever read on this board.

[shmokes]

Sigh . . .  Chad, you just haven't thought this through.  

It's useless trying to discuss anything with this guy.

I don't know.  Polaris seems to be having a pretty good go at it.  You're just wrong.  What can I say?

[Level42]

Oddly enough the people who died were all reasonably old. The 46 year old leady who died yesterday was the youngest. The others vary in age between 50 and 71 years old.

Not that odd. Firstly it's mostly older people going to these kind of parades on average. Second, they probably have the least chance of surviving something like this because of their age and for the same reason they may have been the one's unable to be quick enough to escape the oncoming car.

[Felsir]

So you have somone who travels to the country to watch this stuff and generate goodwill.  Why does this person have palaces and 1000 acre estates and fly on private jets and live in the lap of luxury?  I mean, the fact that they serve some kind of purpose is no answer to that question.  The local postman serves a governmental purpose.

Because if the queen lived on Dullstreet 7, 2nd floor, it wouldn't be a credible queen. Same goes for the POTUS to live in the White House- it serves as a place to work but also to live at a standard that 'fits' the job description. Just as people expect a president (or CEO of a large corporation) to have his own entourage, private plane etc, people also expect that from royals.

Besides, if we didn't have a queen/king those palaces are still being payed for by taxes since these are monuments. The Palais du Louvre's maintenance bills are payed for by taxpayers, even the last royal (or emperor) has moved out. So we might as well have people live in these places.

The discussion wether royalty is justified or not is futile. If you grew up in a country without royalty you wouldn't miss them. If you grew up in a country with royalty then it is such a big part of that countries culture that it is not easily dismissed. The king or queen of a country is part of a national identity that often cannot be rationalised.
It is somewhat similar to a discussion I read elsewhere about a proposal to change the American flag, to some it is just a piece of cloth, to others it is a symbol. Royalty is a waste of taxmoney to some, it holds value to others. If the flags function was replaced by another type of flag or if the job of queen/king was replaced by an elected person instead, it would technically make little difference; however in the hearts of people it is not the same.

Personally I feel the dutch queen does a great job, her son would be an excellent king. They are great ambassadors for the Netherlands and show interest in their subjects. People award great value to a visit of the queen, more than a visit by the PM. It is a ceremonial role that would leave a void if the royals would be gone.

[patrickl]

Oddly enough the people who died were all reasonably old. The 46 year old leady who died yesterday was the youngest. The others vary in age between 50 and 71 years old.

Not that odd. Firstly it's mostly older people going to these kind of parades on average. Second, they probably have the least chance of surviving something like this because of their age and for the same reason they may have been the one's unable to be quick enough to escape the oncoming car.

Yeah, I was thinking that it was that the kids were standing infront, while the car came from behind.

Anyway, I thought the public looked rather more mixed in age than the group of victims. Not sure what the ages were of the people who got injured, but apparently the 3 kids at least all survived being hit.

[Level42]

I think Felsir explained it very well. The short speech that the queen gave after the incident, the visiting of Willem-Alexander and Maxima to the people who lost a beloved person in that tragic event......it's all a lot warmer than anything a president can offer. In private, they can have a much different role than a president that has political responsibility.

I'm not a real "fan" of our royality, I wouldn't be standing in a crowd to catch a glimpse of them, but how they responded was impressive IMHO.

They show they are close to the people in the country and the people appreciate it.

The really funny thing is that the queen and her family have a pretty big support amongst people who immigrated here.

Now, leave us alone and let us run our country as we like.

[Level42]

Let it be well noted that I did not take any part in any "idiotic rant about America".

[Dartful Dodger]

The U.S.A. fought against a monarch that was treating Americans unfairly.

Franch and Russia were ruled by idiots so messed up and cruel that the people in those countries tried to kill off their royal families.

England and Dutchland owe their royal families a great deal, They brought their scattered tribes together to unite those countries and not didn’t take advantage of their people after they created a united country.

They have and should have a great deal of respect and pride for their royal families.  Just like we have a great deal of respect and pride for the rebels that fought against the unfair royal families that ruled us.


To further press the importance of their royal families, look at how backwards Russia and Franch are now.  They traded an unfair monarch system for an unfair communist/socialist system.