Utopia Talk - Politics - The British Royals

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 26 11:18:13 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / The British Royals

Habebe
Member Wed Aug 25 02:11:53
I'm pretty high....but is it just me or if people want to get rid of symbols of oppression that's probably the most offensive.This institution had a monopoly on the slave trade, colonies everywhere, they started the whole industrial climate change shit...I also blame them for Seb.

nhill
Member Wed Aug 25 02:38:01
Do they do anything? Would anyone notice if they were gone?

Habebe
Member Wed Aug 25 02:41:01
They are fodder for tabloids and um, they give away tax money to charities? Ceremonies...thats it.

Seb
Member Wed Aug 25 03:07:04
Habebe:

"This institution had a monopoly on the slave trade"
Er, no it didn't. Slave trade was carried out by private companies. Also, the particular thing you may be referring to - which was the Royal Adventures Trading Company - which had a monopoly on trade with Africa, was founded by James II following the restoration. It lost it's monopoly by the 1680's (70's possibly, I forget) - and it and it's successor, the RAC, isn't actually responsible for the bulk of the British slave trade.

James II was deposed by Parliament in the Glorious Revolution and replaced with William of Orange and subsequently the Hanovarians, and the effect of that revolution was England radically reformed the constitution with the formalisation of rights on a statutory basis (The Bill of Rights) and the monarchy by entrenching the Crown-in-Parliament as the sovereign body.

Most of the British Colonialism was a function of corporate/capitalist interests, where power resided more or less continuously since the 18th century until the advent of mass franchise with the reform bills of the 19th century; rather than the Monarchy.

Habebe
Member Wed Aug 25 04:54:06
The RAC definitely was granted a monopoly on slave trade, at a point.Point is, it happened.

"Founded in 1672, the Royal African Company was granted a similar monopoly in the slave trade. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p269.html

Habebe
Member Wed Aug 25 04:55:24
"William of Orange"_Also a straight up asshole.

Seb
Member Wed Aug 25 05:02:17
Habebe:

Yes, but the RAC wasn't owned by the monarchy (arguably, neither was the predecessor - it was a company owned by the heir to the throne, but not a crown body).

"William of Orange"_Also a straight up asshole.

Only if you are a Catholic. The Irish hate him for the invasion of Ireland, but overlook that the Irish rallied to support James II and allied with France with a view to re-establishing absolute monarchy.

Habebe
Member Wed Aug 25 05:28:20
Heir to the throne is still a royal and in this case clearly its a symbol of oppression.Far worse than the Confederate flags.

show deleted posts

Habebe Member	Wed Aug 25 02:11:53 I'm pretty high....but is it just me or if people want to get rid of symbols of oppression that's probably the most offensive.This institution had a monopoly on the slave trade, colonies everywhere, they started the whole industrial climate change shit...I also blame them for Seb.
nhill Member	Wed Aug 25 02:38:01 Do they do anything? Would anyone notice if they were gone?
Habebe Member	Wed Aug 25 02:41:01 They are fodder for tabloids and um, they give away tax money to charities? Ceremonies...thats it.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 25 03:07:04 Habebe: "This institution had a monopoly on the slave trade" Er, no it didn't. Slave trade was carried out by private companies. Also, the particular thing you may be referring to - which was the Royal Adventures Trading Company - which had a monopoly on trade with Africa, was founded by James II following the restoration. It lost it's monopoly by the 1680's (70's possibly, I forget) - and it and it's successor, the RAC, isn't actually responsible for the bulk of the British slave trade. James II was deposed by Parliament in the Glorious Revolution and replaced with William of Orange and subsequently the Hanovarians, and the effect of that revolution was England radically reformed the constitution with the formalisation of rights on a statutory basis (The Bill of Rights) and the monarchy by entrenching the Crown-in-Parliament as the sovereign body. Most of the British Colonialism was a function of corporate/capitalist interests, where power resided more or less continuously since the 18th century until the advent of mass franchise with the reform bills of the 19th century; rather than the Monarchy.
Habebe Member	Wed Aug 25 04:54:06 The RAC definitely was granted a monopoly on slave trade, at a point.Point is, it happened. "Founded in 1672, the Royal African Company was granted a similar monopoly in the slave trade. " http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p269.html
Habebe Member	Wed Aug 25 04:55:24 "William of Orange"_Also a straight up asshole.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 25 05:02:17 Habebe: Yes, but the RAC wasn't owned by the monarchy (arguably, neither was the predecessor - it was a company owned by the heir to the throne, but not a crown body). "William of Orange"_Also a straight up asshole. Only if you are a Catholic. The Irish hate him for the invasion of Ireland, but overlook that the Irish rallied to support James II and allied with France with a view to re-establishing absolute monarchy.
Habebe Member	Wed Aug 25 05:28:20 Heir to the throne is still a royal and in this case clearly its a symbol of oppression.Far worse than the Confederate flags.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: