The idea of a 'king' is so ridiculously offensive. Any such should lose their crowns or their head. - ThreadSky

trance.bsky.social • 2 days ago

The idea of a 'king' is so ridiculously offensive.

Any such should lose their crowns or their head.

“We have an obligation to resist kings, we have an obligation to resist oligarchs.”

Comments

And look, my heritage is Irish. So there's that contempt.

But the very fucking idea, is so grotesque.

I sometimes like to wind Amy up by talking about the beneficial talking points of constitutional monarchies.

The ...good intention...argument is that a King (or Queen) can be the last bastion

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

against some forms of tyrannies. A family or person with a very vested interest in country, and ideally raised from birth with the concept of their duty, honor, jorb, blah blah blah.

Vile. Inhuman.

And terribly abusive to the children raised in such a weird fucking dynamic cult.

And all of them

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

speaking specifically of the British monarchy, as I'm not familiar with all *spit* royals

seems universally abusive. Did any have a good childhood?

Oh but why don't they come of age and say 'haha fuck no'

Some did. Most did not, not just because they loved the power and glory, they could maintain

gregolear.bsky.social•2 days ago

It’s a crime family with tackier taste.

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

obscene wealth by fucking off.

No, I'm also someone who has a strong sense of family duty and 'honor' as I understand the term. My family by and large has a strong, strong sense of what we owe family in terms of care, etc.

So like, had *I* been raised in such a dynamic I would've felt

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

absolutely obligated. And I have enough of a narcissistic streak (in the normal sense we all do but I sometimes think far more highly of myself than perhaps one should ;D)

I would believe it would be right for me to do so, indeed I would strive to do my absolute best for people, for country.

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

OH OH OH

AND I JUST HAD THIS THOUGHT

In the West, and in the US, we had a period of time during my life when people got REALLY FUCKING PISSED OFF upon discovering that OTHER CULTURES raise children to fulfill certain religious and political roles.

That children would be selected by various means

romabysen.bsky.social•2 days ago

The kids of the Swedish royals have turned out pretty well. The royals haven't had any power for a long time so I guess there's a bit less pressure.

outerleftfield.net•2 days ago

Point/Counterpoint is the Danish Royal family. Definitely an interesting family, and actually models of Royalty aught to be: models of civic virtue and scions of culture.

romabysen.bsky.social•2 days ago

US, long ago: kings are bad. We should not have a king. Ever.
US now, when Europe has gotten rid of their kings or made them figureheads: hey, we should have a king. A really stupid king. Like, the stupidest king ever.

ianbetteridge.com•2 days ago

Preferably both.

trance.bsky.social•2 days ago

Cromwell and the Puritans can get fucked, but that Britain restored the monarchy

so close.

ianbetteridge.com•2 days ago

So, so close.

abecedarian.bsky.social•2 days ago

It's only because people are calling Leon President. King is better than President, and he must be better than Leon, therefore he's King.

But only a fool would be King for a day...

eubanksengineeringresearch.com•2 days ago

Good gods. I hadn’t realized but of COURSE that’s where this came from.
Probably MusKKK himself suggested it when Trump got his diapers all in a twist about the fact that he’s not wearing the pants in that relationship.

JFC how totally transparent.

ravenstromdans.bsky.social•2 days ago

Ideally both, because anyone who crowns themselves are never going to be convinced they had not somehow earned and thusly were in some way *owed* the position they'd raised themselves or been raised to by others.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply