Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
I'm not jubilating by Velica I'm not jubilating by Velica
Its actually very difficult being an anti-monarchist when the Queen is such a cutey.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconzarfir:
Zarfir Featured By Owner Edited May 2, 2015
grass in another ones garden is always greener. Even in the oldest democracys there can be a desire for monarchy.
i appreciate your money argument.
and also that we live in an "era of enlightenment"
But... and not least we are humans and not engines.

I think it is a conflict like the one between Atheism and Religion.
There are some people how need it in an emotional, non logical, way. For... what ever.
And as long these people are able to vote, nothing will change. Because there are always people, who think in another way.

Who are we to tell them in what they should believe. Or if they should be proud about something.
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner May 4, 2015
The key word here is vote. Or not voting, in this particular case. :)
Reply
:iconexodvs:
Exodvs Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
I wish the Britain would do to Elizabeth what your country did with the Emmanuel II; namely, deposition.
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2014
Hopefully this could be done without bloodshed.
Manuel's father was shot in the face.
Reply
:iconexodvs:
Exodvs Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
I knew that. And it was quite unfortunate.
Reply
:iconduke-nidhoggr:
Duke-Nidhoggr Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'm a monarchist, but I laughed hard at this. 
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2014
Note to self: monarchists CAN laugh.

:)
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Cute? Seriously? The embalmed, shaven corpse of Dumbledore?
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
:)

I meant more in a austere granny kind of cute.

The concept of monarchy: not so cute.
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
pretty much hell didn't the founding father's kick the British in their collective ass so we wouldn't have to deal with a fucking monarchy and royal baby shit 
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
You need to convince the Brits to do the same at home.
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah I'd probably get my ass beat by the royal guard
Reply
:iconjmoc1:
Jmoc1 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
But now America is ruled by a Theocratic Aristocracy. The government was bought out by WASPs a long time ago.
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks more so to liberal sell outs than anything else.
Reply
:iconjmoc1:
Jmoc1 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
You do know that WASPs are usually traditionalists. I don't think they would vote against their interests.
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Honestly they would for the right price if you ask me every political group will jump on command.
Reply
:iconjmoc1:
Jmoc1 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
Your grammar is confusing. Do you mean that all political groups and all public workers are corrupt or just the PACs?
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes most political groups and public workers are corrupt, and its not like we have a specific police group to make sure the powers that be don't take bribes from lobbyists. I honestly think if you'd walk into Congress you'd find plenty of white collar crooks
Reply
:iconjmoc1:
Jmoc1 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
Most public workers? Since when are Postal Office workers corrupt?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
Monarchy is a cancer on modern day society.
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
Not so much a cancer but a really annoying rash.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
Something like that, yeah.
Reply
:iconsuffer360:
Suffer360 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
Says the guy with KING hidden in his account name. j/k I agree on your take that a monarchy is outdated and should be removed. I hardly see the point of a constitutional monarchy form of government. 
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2014
Since you mention it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ZxV7…

I want all royalty out- there is a lot of money going to them that they didn't do a thing to earn, money that could be spent on the people instead.
Reply
:iconlexmontypython:
LexMontyPython Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2014
I'm no monarchist, but...

Did you know the Portuguese president costs more money (16 millions) than, say, the King of Spain (8 millions)? Or that Sarkozy, when he was the French president, wasted much more money (112 millions) than Queen Elizabeth (46 millions)?

Also, if you think that by removing the monarchy the state will get its hands on that "lot of money", you're wrong. Most, if not all of the money, is theirs. You must understand the difference between state property and the royal family's property. It's not all the same. If the royal family is deposed, they'll loose their crown, but they'll keep their estates and properties.

For instance: Portugal is a republic since 1910. However, the royal family (the Braganza), which holds no political power, still owns lots of real estate and properties and palaces and stuff all over the country. They're filthy rich.

You're right when you say they didn't do a thing to earn all that stuff; but the same goes to all the rich people which are rich just because they inherited big corporations founded by their grand-grand-grand-fathers. Those are monarchies too, and they worry me much more than the actual kingdoms.

Saving money is not an argument if you want to support republicanism; it's actually the other way around: monarchies can be cheaper than republics, as royal families can sustain themselves with their own properties while presidents live off tax payers' money.

Either way, monarchy or republic, that doesn't matter. It's a shallow discussion, as the guy holding the real power is the prime minister. The president or the king is just an idiot doing the speeches. If I were British, I'd be much more worried with the electoral system, for example.

Saying that if it were a republic things would be better is pure demagoguery. In 1910, the Portuguese deposed their king under the notion that just by changing the head of state, their bankrupcy would magically go away. Obviously it didn't. Actually, looking at the list of modern-day monarchies, most of them are rich countries - UK, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden... being monarchies is not the cause of their success; it's a symptom.

Wealthy nations are wealthy because their people are hard-working and politically moderate; they don't fall for demagogue promises - "there's a crisis, but it's not our fault, it's, it's, it's... the king's, yeah, so let's depose him and everything will be great. Oh, it didn't work, but it's not our fault for sure, it's it's it's... the jews'! Or the black people's! Or the rich people's! Or the trade unions'!" - wealthy nations don't think like that, they don't make excuses, they think "there's something we've been doing wrong, let's find out what it is and solve the crisis by having everyone working hard, together! ". That's why many wealthy nations keep their monarchies or why they never fell into a dictatorship.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2014
It's a simple question: what costs more, a state with a prime minister and a monarch, or a state with just a prime minister?

I don't know how it works where you are from, but over here they receive millions in tax money. Money they haven't earned or deserved, paid for by the people in exchange for no practical function at all. That's what I mean. 

That rich people didn't earn their money isn't an excuse for continuing an undemocratic tradition stemming from a dictatorial age.

I think it does matter. We're supposed to live in an era of enlightenment; keeping an expensive institution with a dictatorial origin, with no practical function is wrong, both ethically and practically. 
Reply
:iconsaxonpride:
SaxonPride Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2012
And that's why the office of King/Queen should be an elected one.
I have no qualms with the title of Kingship, but it should be based on merit and the will of the people over hereditary birthright.

That way we make the nation more democratic yet retain the semblance of monarchy that is interlinked with our national identity.

But at the moment I honestly don't believe the Royal Family will remain in power after the Queens demise. She has only weathered the years due to being a woman and being very quiet and nondescript. Her son is a buffoon, her son is not well liked and people won't support him. Especially not when the numerous economic catastrophies force his subjects into poverty.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2014
"And that's why the office of King/Queen should be an elected one.
I have no qualms with the title of Kingship, but it should be based on merit and the will of the people over hereditary birthright."

So in other words, a democratically elect leader, like a president or a prime minister? That would be pretty non-royal- royalty in charge is inherently dictatorial.
Reply
:iconjasonkarrmauer:
JasonkarrMauer Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
Nations have tried Elective monarchies for centuries...it always ended up crashing and burning, because one family will always get it in the end...its how most monarchial families got their thrones (if you go back to when they were elective)
Reply
:iconvelica:
Velica Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2012
Fingers crossed for your prediction to be true. Although I can't see the British letting go of the Royal Family just because Charles is not as "cute" as the Elizabeth. As you said, you fellas believe having a royal family somehow informs you about your national identity.

We're all going through an identity crisis since the end of the empires...
Reply
:iconsaxonpride:
SaxonPride Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2012
It's not about being cute, per se. But here's the thing, even if the criticisms levelled against the Queen are accurate and logical, her detractors will always be seen as attacking a fragile old woman.

Her gender and her age make her almost immune from criticism, as does her (public) persona of being very restrained and modest.

Charles will meddle, he can't do much legally, but he can - and most likely will - comment on big issues. Which could be very harmful to his reputation.
I also doubt that he will be as scaled-down as the Queen, the image of him with all his military regalia and medals won't play well with those wary of state power. It simply looks too fascistic, too reminiscent of an arrogant dictator of some banana republic.

His very nature may not immediately bring about the demise of the monarchy, but it will finally legitimise questions about its relevance. National identity is a big hang-up for my compatriots, but just watch how meaningless it becomes when all the cuts and recessions begin to bite.

That Jubilee was nothing but the last gasp of a dying beast, I truly believe that.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
  • Art Gifts
Download JPG 7612 × 2300




Details

Submitted on
May 31, 2012
Image Size
9.9 MB
Resolution
7612×2300
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,135
Favourites
18 (who?)
Comments
50
Downloads
5
×