Kings, queens, monarchy

[Mig]

For many years, I have been wondering why at this time of age, what in the hell people care about kings, queens and monarchies. Why still people allowing a group of people living the big life, luxury and being a parasite of the state, government or from those who work hard their whole life for these people? How is that possible? With all that money spend for them, it could be used for better social or communitarian purposes. Your thoughts?

[CityHermit!]

Lineage and some kind of (unbroken?) connection to the past has an appeal for some, especially for cultural purposes.

[Mig]

10 hours ago, CityHermit! said:

Lineage and some kind of (unbroken?) connection to the past has an appeal for some, especially for cultural purposes.

 

I get that and kind of understand the whole ceremonial stuff but the cost in pounds, dollars, money, for me it is just outrageous. These people live the high life and the majority live the low life. Why can't they just work like everyone else? Represent a country is not a job, at least a representative or sales representative gets paid but not even close in years what these people get to live comfortably.

[silent thunder]

I'm with you mate.  Never got the fascination with certain humans who trace a bloodline back to a certain time and name in history.  All nations are built on violence and each boundary between nations represents little else than the spot where two violent gangs agreed to stop fighting... for now.

 

The action of nobility, is a method of parasitic behavior.  Feeding off the labor of others through intimidation.

 

Trace our geneology back far enough and we all have common ancestors in the soup of the ancient seas... so who's more or less noble than any other?

 

I contend, one of the greatest revolutions in human history, is the creation, and maintenance of the concept of 'land ownership'.  It goes hand in hand with the notion of a king/queen (bully)  who claims ownership over said lands and then demands tribute be paid (through threat of force, or the promise of protection) by any who would grow food, hunt, or even live or move across a patch of earth that has existed for billions of years. 

The audacious notion that one person can claim to 'own land' (or any thing for that matter), forcing others to pay them a tax for the privelege of living on land that they naturally arose from and manifested out of... seems to me, one of the great harmful acts enacted by humans.  And it just keeps on rolling... 

 

In my experience, we don't even own our own bodies, let alone land or objects.  Our bodies do most operations without our slightest conscious interaction... hormone production, digestion of food, hair growth, replacement of cells, removal of toxins, conversion of nutrition into energy and new cells... all while we sleep, talk, drive around... we don't own any of that.   Even what most folks call the 'power of choice' to me is an illusory explanation after the fact, of a process that is unconscious.

 

We don't own our own bodies, yet most folks have no problem accepting a piece of paper with a stamp on it from a government building means a person owns a plot of land. 

 

That people grow up accepting this notion that they are in debt to someone else for manifesting naturally in a body on this planet, because that's how it's explained to them before the age of reason and 'that's just how it's always been, so it must be right'... right?

 

It's remarkable how it never seems to be questioned.

 

Reminds me of the 11 monkey experiment of the 50's.

 

In the end, the only thing I think I can claim with any surety of ownership, is my attention and presence.

 

My young son taught me this one afternoon when he was a toddler.  I was trying to get some writing done and he wanted me to play with him... so I'd get on the floor, get him interested in a toy and a story, then sneak up and try to get something else done. 

 

He would immediately pull me back.

 

This went on a few times until it struck me... the toys aren't even remotely a thing to him... not real in a sense.  The only thing he really wanted, was my attention, presence and connection. 

 

In that moment it struck me.  This is perhaps the only thing I truly possess... all others come and go, but awareness abides...

and it's all he needed or wanted from me.

 

Kings/Queens/Nobility are parasitic in nature, feeding off others.  yet something in our chimplike human process seems drawn to sustaining it, in spite of the horror and harm it ceaselessly perpetrates.

[Lost in Translation]

Kardashians.

[CityHermit!]

20 hours ago, Mig said:

 

I get that and kind of understand the whole ceremonial stuff but the cost in pounds, dollars, money, for me it is just outrageous. These people live the high life and the majority live the low life. Why can't they just work like everyone else? Represent a country is not a job, at least a representative or sales representative gets paid but not even close in years what these people get to live comfortably.

The same could be said for all kinds of people and walks of life besides royalty. I'm not even defending it one way or another but I can see why it has a bearing on national spirit. European royalty is one thing, but Japan's is allegedly unbroken and goes way way back doesn't it? It also would be different for cultures with a stronger sense of filial piety than those that don't. Chinese emperors had to pay homage to their ancestors too, exemplifying filial piety for the rest of empire. In theory at least. All that aside, in recent years I've grown to see more value in filial piety in as far as it can connect one to the genes of their ancestors, thereby affecting their expression in one's life, as well as establishing foundation for future generations that they can tap into the same. Why I say that is a whole other topic, but what I mean to say is that I think that the way societies have practiced things in the past may have been an attempt at getting to something they could not yet understand that maybe we in modern times have a better chance at grasping.

Edited June 3, 2018 by CityHermit!
one typo, and replaced a word

[Mig]

4 minutes ago, CityHermit! said:

The same could be said for all kinds of people and walks of life besides royalty. I'm not even defending it one way or another but I can see why it has a bearing on national spirit. European royalty is one thing, but Japan's is allegedly unbroken and goes way way back doesn't it? It also would be different for cultures with a stronger sense of filial piety than those that don't. Chinese emperors had to pay homage to their ancestors too, exemplifying filial piety for the rest of empire. In theory at least. All that aside, in recent years I've grown to see more value in filial piety in as far as it can connect one to the genes of their ancestors, thereby affecting their expression in one's life, as well as establishing foundation for future generations that they can tap into the same. Why I say that is a whole other topic, but what I mean to say is that I think that the way societies have practiced things in the past may have been an attempt at getting to something they could not yet understand that maybe we in modern times have a better chance at grasping.

 

I get that and I think i understand what you are saying about respect to elders and ancestors. Filial piety sounds to Christian to me. Whether is in Europe, Thailand, Japan or Bhutan or other monarchies, all I noticed they live the high life and the money they spend for their luxuries could be used for something beneficial to kids or even education or maybe investing in new technologies.  Let them be the kings and queens and give them the minimum wage to see how they will react or even if they will accept that treatment. Why so much money spent in their life time? Just because they are the monarchs, come on!!

[thelerner]

I don't really care one way or the other. Let the British decide if they want to keep paying for there Royalty.   So far, they do.

 

They do get tangibles and intangible benefits from it though.  Never underestimate the power of tradition, pomp and circumstance.  After all, they have been Englands longest running soap opera for a thousand years. 

[CityHermit!]

1 hour ago, Mig said:

 

I get that and I think i understand what you are saying about respect to elders and ancestors. Filial piety sounds to Christian to me. Whether is in Europe, Thailand, Japan or Bhutan or other monarchies, all I noticed they live the high life and the money they spend for their luxuries could be used for something beneficial to kids or even education or maybe investing in new technologies.  Let them be the kings and queens and give them the minimum wage to see how they will react or even if they will accept that treatment. Why so much money spent in their life time? Just because they are the monarchs, come on!!

I'm curious as to why filial piety sounds Christian to you. I've just not heard it be described that way before. Minimum wage for royalty, that's an idea. I liked the story about the Yellow Emperor living in a hut, whether its myth or not.

[CityHermit!]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

I don't really care one way or the other. Let the British decide if they want to keep paying for there Royalty.   So far, they do.

 

They do get tangibles and intangible benefits from it though.  Never underestimate the power of tradition, pomp and circumstance.  After all, they have been Englands longest running soap opera for a thousand years. 

Have you heard about Tommy from New York?

[thelerner]

8 hours ago, CityHermit! said:

Have you heard about Tommy from New York?

nope, but a quick google search gets me 136,000 hits in under a second. 

[CityHermit!]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

nope, but a quick google search gets me 136,000 hits in under a second. 

He is supposed to be an expert on British royalty, has some organization about it too. But it was recently discussed in news that he's actually an Italian-American from upstate New York. He developed his own British accent, so I guess people didn't know the difference for some time. Despite being an American, he probably does have more background knowledge on British royalty than many Britons. It's kind of ironic, also given that historically America rose out of resistance to the British crown.

[Mig]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:46 AM, Lost in Translation said:

Kardashians.

nothing to compare, people buy what they offer, kings, queens and nobility have nothing to offer. It has been for centuries and still look at their parades, the magazines that publicize about them, their weddings and nobody say anything about the cost and where the money comes from for such spending. At the end, for me is disgusting to see the spoil and waste while there are other issues to take care.

[Mig]

3 hours ago, CityHermit! said:

He is supposed to be an expert on British royalty, has some organization about it too. But it was recently discussed in news that he's actually an Italian-American from upstate New York. He developed his own British accent, so I guess people didn't know the difference for some time. Despite being an American, he probably does have more background knowledge on British royalty than many Britons. It's kind of ironic, also given that historically America rose out of resistance to the British crown.

https://bmsf.org.uk/thomas-mace-archer-mills/

https://www.youtube.com/user/MonarchySociety

Didn't know about this guy and what kind of dignity and respect does he deserve?

Edited June 3, 2018 by Mig

[CityHermit!]

31 minutes ago, Mig said:

https://bmsf.org.uk/thomas-mace-archer-mills/

https://www.youtube.com/user/MonarchySociety

Didn't know about this guy and what kind of dignity and respect does he deserve?

I don't know, I don't have anything to say about dignity and respect on the matter regarding anyone. Only that he seems to be more familiar with the history of British royalty than many Britons, which to me is ironic.

[CityHermit!]

14 hours ago, CityHermit! said:

I'm curious as to why filial piety sounds Christian to you. I've just not heard it be described that way before. Minimum wage for royalty, that's an idea. I liked the story about the Yellow Emperor living in a hut, whether its myth or not.

I was curious about the idea of filial piety sounding Christian because of the history of Christianity and Judaism and the rest of the world where they have interacted. It's odd to me for a number of reasons. Christianity places emphasis on Jesus' heritage in regards to Judaism, his genealogy, etc. In the context of the thread topic, there are also elements of royal succession, if considering lineage to David. So there is that sense of filial piety by Jesus to his Judaic heritage. On the other hand, he wasn't accepted as Messiah by various Judaic factions at that time. Instead of being recognized as King of the Jews by other Jews, his followers basically overthrew the Roman Empire so he essentially became their emperor instead, metaphysically if not physically. This lead to the citizens of the Roman Empire to turn away from their own ancestral heritage. This in turn happened with many other regions that Christianity had spread too. So to me there is an irony that in as far as Jesus is filial, many Christians are not as a result. Unless, one wants to make the argument that being filial rests in submitting to YHVH, and therefore all within the Abrahamic faiths are filial. Still, it gets complicated for other reasons, particularly when accounting for the East. Just some thoughts.

[Mig]

On 6/2/2018 at 9:57 PM, CityHermit! said:

I'm curious as to why filial piety sounds Christian to you. I've just not heard it be described that way before. Minimum wage for royalty, that's an idea. I liked the story about the Yellow Emperor living in a hut, whether its myth or not.

It is the translation used by christian missionaries in the 1800's . The chinese term definition Filial piety was a central value in traditional Chinese culture. Its importance went far beyond that of the biblical commandment “honour thy mother and thy father”. Filial piety was and still is a value based on strict principles of hierarchy, obligation and obedience. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the very foundation of the hierarchical structure of the Chinese family and thus of the Chinese society as a whole.

[CityHermit!]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:48 AM, Mig said:

It is the translation used by christian missionaries in the 1800's . The chinese term definition Filial piety was a central value in traditional Chinese culture. Its importance went far beyond that of the biblical commandment “honour thy mother and thy father”. Filial piety was and still is a value based on strict principles of hierarchy, obligation and obedience. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the very foundation of the hierarchical structure of the Chinese family and thus of the Chinese society as a whole.

I did not know Christian missionaries translated it that way. I like learning new things, basically what I want to get out of a forum in the first place. Thanks.

[Mig]

On 6/5/2018 at 3:26 PM, CityHermit! said:

I did not know Christian missionaries translated it that way. I like learning new things, basically what I want to get out of a forum in the first place. Thanks.

So it is the same as righteousness and benevolence, translation of terms full of Christian connotations