I disagree. Yet your replies are cranky pseudo-news as anyone reading them can readily see. They’re bordeline mentally ill, paranoid delusional. You’ll be telling me next the Royal family are lizards from outer space.
Pedophilia across the globe isn’t “crank news” I agree, but linking to the silly prankish photo you did and claiming that is evidence the Royal family are all paedophiles certainly is. And, yes, there’s real evidence for it in the church, and people have been prosecuted on the basis of it, but there’s none that there’s a global ring of Royal paedophiles, that’s just as DJT would say, Fake news. And mixing church with royals in your response hoping the truth for the former would give weight to your theory of the truth of the latter is, well, as you would say, disingenuous.
And talking of being disingenuous (your favourite word it seems) these latest links you chose, are certainly full of that, deliberately choosing to obfuscate by confusing ‘the Crown’ with the monarch personally, yet knowing full well (I suspect) that the Queen has little or no control of most aspects of The Crown’ which is the general title of The State within monarchies. It’s like saying the US President owns everything that the US government owns, all the land etc. Even court cases in monarchies are ‘the Crown/Queen versus…’ yet it doesn’t mean it’s her personal project to prosecute someone for drink driving or whatever. The roads are called ‘Her Majesty’s Highways’, the army and navy, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, etc, , the tax office Her Majesty’s Revenues and customs,’ yet she doesn’t collect the money, the government does. It’s because she is the head of state, nothing more. The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Monarch, she can’t sell it and revenue from it goes to the government, the state. Are you seriously suggesting, as this article does, that the Queen personally owns all the land in Canada? Wonder what Canadians think of that? It’s absurd. Archaic titles for things do not reflect the practical reality. To not admit that is to be yourself disingenuous. You’re either really scraping the barrel or just totally devoid of understanding what political history and structure and life in the UK and other monarchies like Sweden, Demark, Norway, Japan, etc, is like. Incidentally, you never answered why these countries who are monarchies score highest in quality of life, freedom for citizens, freedom for press, human rights, tolerance, happiness, social equality, etc, whereas republics come at the bottom, and the US quite a way down the list, if monarchies are so bad as you claim? Instead you carefully avoided it as something inconvenient, a piece of real tangible proof, you didn’t want to face or address. Such evasion is, what’s the word again… oh yeh, disingenuous.
So tell me the answer then Greenwich. I’d like to hear it?
Tell me also the other point you sneakily avoided, why it is that polls suggest people living in monarchies generally approve of them and don’t want to lose them?
Nor did you address the notion, presented, that it is good for nationalism to be focused on a monarch rather than a politician like a president as the monarch has no power thereby avoiding demagoguery and how in monarchies, politicians are reduced to being mere public servants.
Instead you chose to deflect from these real pertinent rational arguments to stuff about paedophiles, stonehenge being built in the 1920’s and aliens, other unproven conspiracy theories and how much money the Queen may have.
As said before, wealth is irrelevant anyway, that wan’t the issue, you’re deliberatley sidetracking as with other subjects. To recap (I’m losing track myself by now) you originally claimed we people here in monarchies all are somehow servile and feel the need to bow down to the monarch etc and, as I tried to explain, this is simply nonesense. I don’t feel like that and nobody I know feels like that. There may be the odd nutjob who does but that’s an anomaly. The Royals are merely a living focus for nationalist sentiments and are also regarded by many people, (usually women) in the same way as they regard other celebrities, or ‘high society’ (whatever that is) an amalgamation of the two. This latter aspect can be found even in people outside the monarchy, like the US, whose citzens are also often found queuing up outside Buckinghamn palace or royal events or taking a fawning, starry-eyed interest (as they do with all celebs) and you, again evasively, failed the explain why that is the case if there is no celebrity element as you maintain. Again evasively disingenuous. The US isn’t a monarchy, is it?
So over to you. I look forward to you being the one obliged to answer the questions for a change and hopefully not via links to news sources about how shed lizard skin has been found in Buckingham Palace, but via proper explained, rational arguments.