Talk:Monarchy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sviatopolk I of Kiev the Accursed deserves an honourable mention.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What for? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Best royal nickname. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention should be made of Pretenders - who range from the respectable to the 'suitably offbeat for mention on RW.' 82.198.250.8 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


[edit] Terrible Article

Really poor. Lame humour, facile coverage of issue.— Unsigned, by: 121.208.40.196 / talk / contribs

We look forward to your positive suggestions or, even better, your edits which improve the article.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I kinda agree. The section on the British monarchy is funny enough (not intelligent enough nor stupid enough to think they can run the country) but above the information is very selective. The Civil List expenditure doesn't all get spaffed on them throwing hedonistic parties, it's mostly spent on state functions for visiting ambassadors (which arguably would be hosted anyway in a republic) and staff wages and upkeep of palaces - i.e., contributing to the economy and employment in a fairly direct way, while the profits from those enterprises are voluntarily turned over to the government resulting in a net gain from the Royals. Although you have to put all those figure in the context of how much the government is currently spending on two aircraft carriers, and then you realise that the presence or absence of the Royal Family has less impact upon the country than a light itch on my right arsecheek. Scarlet A.pngbomination 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support