gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3338
    MEMBERS
  • 189786
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Humour   Non-military topics

Started 5-Jun by autogun; 2001 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  If they don't have "royal" titles, then they're not what I'm talking about (i.e., queens, kings, and "royal families").

I guess I don't make the distinction between a "royal" and rich to the point of being divided from most of the rest of the people.

Then that explains the disconnect.  You're making up your own definition of "royal family".

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

stancrist said...

Then that explains the disconnect.  You're making up your own definition of "royal family".

Royal Family or "royal family" or "royal" family?

As far as I see it the old royal families (of Europe - presumably elsewhere but I'm not so familiar with the history) are representatives of the most successful "companies" which historically can be seen as protection rackets. These companies end up owning whole countries and are passed down the male lineage, which was the style at the time. Once this wealth is accrued, through fair means or foul, it's kind of difficult to lose it as long as the "company" remains in one piece and tying it to a country really helps it stay together. By the standards of the time these families legitimately owned the countries they controlled, managing it by leasing it to barons etc. These royal titles are kind of analogous to modern company ranks. Ultimately the fall of many of these immensely powerful and wealthy families was down to a popular revolution of one sort or another forcibly re-distributing the wealth of the company. Which sounds rather communist to me.

Certainly current laws across the western world permits inheritance of wealth

Is royal family a definition or a description? What differentiates a Trump or a Kennedy from a Windsor?

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

7-Jun

God save the queen/ 'cause tourists are money, as John Lydon sang.

stancrist

From: stancrist

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

As far as I see it the old royal families (of Europe - presumably elsewhere but I'm not so familiar with the history) are representatives of the most successful "companies" which historically can be seen as protection rackets. These companies end up owning whole countries and are passed down the male lineage, which was the style at the time. Once this wealth is accrued, through fair means or foul, it's kind of difficult to lose it as long as the "company" remains in one piece and tying it to a country really helps it stay together. By the standards of the time these families legitimately owned the countries they controlled, managing it by leasing it to barons etc. These royal titles are kind of analogous to modern company ranks. Ultimately the fall of many of these immensely powerful and wealthy families was down to a popular revolution of one sort or another forcibly re-distributing the wealth of the company. Which sounds rather communist to me.

It sounds more like just deserts to me.  And what you so generously describe as a "company" is more accurately called "organized crime."

RovingPedant said:

What differentiates a Trump or a Kennedy from a Windsor?

A Trump or Kennedy is not entitled to billions of dollars of public funds simply for being a Trump or Kennedy.

A Trump or Kennedy is not entitled to be the head of state simply for being a Trump or Kennedy.

stancrist

From: stancrist

7-Jun

schnuersi said:

The people in the countries mentioned all have traditionally a rather relaxed and layed back attitude.

The people of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are "traditionally" relaxed and laid back?  Maybe in recent times.  Not always.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

stancrist said...

It sounds more like just deserts to me.  And what you so generously describe as a "company" is more accurately called "organized crime."

Seen as perfectly legitimate at the time, it's only a more recent lens that views it differently. Even so most current governments could be described in equally unflattering terms. I also suspect that some of the current business families may have their methods of wealth generation viewed askance in the future as well.

stancrist said...

A Trump or Kennedy is not entitled to billions of dollars of public funds simply for being a Trump or Kennedy.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. They have their trust funds and properties that they have access to purely based on who they are. Those may not come directly from the public purse but I expect that they get certain tax breaks and preferential treatment around them again, based on their name.

In the case of the UK royal family they are maintaining a deal done a long time ago where the proceeds of the royal estate goes to the government who then passes a portion of that back to the royal family. 

stancrist said...

A Trump or Kennedy is not entitled to be the head of state simply for being a Trump or Kennedy.

 

Not directly, but they are placed in positions of vastly more import than the average man on the street as a result of their inheritance and have a far better chance of getting into public office on account of their name as well.

stancrist

From: stancrist

7-Jun

autogun said:

It does suggest that, if we could start from scratch, the ideal world would consist of a much larger number of  smaller countries. Big countries seem more likely to create various problems, for themselves as well as others.

History does not support that notion. 

The Korean War was started by North Korea, a small country.

The Second World War was started by Japan, Germany, and Italy, three small countries.

The First World War was started by Austria-Hungary, a small country.

The invasion and conquest of North and South America, India, Africa, and other parts of the globe were done by Britain, France, Spain, and other small countries.

stancrist

From: stancrist

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said... It sounds more like just deserts to me.  And what you so generously describe as a "company" is more accurately called "organized crime."

Seen as perfectly legitimate at the time...

By whom?  The perpetrators?  Of course, the rulers are going to see their actions as legitimate.

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  A Trump or Kennedy is not entitled to billions of dollars of public funds simply for being a Trump or Kennedy.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. They have their trust funds and properties that they have access to purely based on who they are.

Those trust funds and properties are not public funds.

gdellar

From: gdellar

7-Jun

I also like that verse although verse 1 and 3 are usually the ones sung as since the 30’s verse 2 has been a bit disapproved of as rather bellicose in suggesting that GB (and Australia as was our anthem until 1974) had enemies that needed dealing with.

King George V thought so. We do not have enemies any more it seems, just problems with other countries behaving unreasonably.

BTW Australia still has verse 1 of GSTQ as a royal anthem played when working royals pay us an official visit. Of course no one much under 60 knows the words.

autogun

From: autogun

8-Jun

stancrist said:

autogun said: It does suggest that, if we could start from scratch, the ideal world would consist of a much larger number of  smaller countries. Big countries seem more likely to create various problems, for themselves as well as others. History does not support that notion.  The Korean War was started by North Korea, a small country. The Second World War was started by Japan, Germany, and Italy, three small countries. The First World War was started by Austria-Hungary, a small country. The invasion and conquest of North and South America, India, Africa, and other parts of the globe were done by Britain, France, Spain, and other small countries.

Depends how you define "small": for a start, population is at least as important as land area. 

At the start of WW1, Austria-Hungary had a population of 50 million, Germany 67 mn, France 40 mn, UK 40 mn, Italy 35 mn, Spain 21 mn, Romania 6.6 mn, Portugal 6 mn, Belgium 6 mn, Netherlands 5.6 mn, Sweden 5.3 mn, Switzerland 3.5 mn, Bulgaria 3.1 mn, Norway 2.3 mn, Denmark 2.3 mn, 

Elsewhere in the world, the USA had 87 mn, Russia 150 mn, Japan 42 mn, the Ottoman Empire 22 mn, and China 420 mn, just to give a few examples for comparison. None of these figures include any imperial possessions. 

To focus on WW1, there was clearly only one very large country involved - Russia.  The rapidly-growing USA was just about in the "large" category. Europe was divided into medium (say, 20-50 million) and small (<20 mn), with Germany being medium/large. Austria-Hungary was the second largest country in Europe, and not "small" by any sensible measure.

Similarly, WW2 was mainly fought between medium-sized countries, with the USA and Russia in the large category.

TOP