__________ is/are overrated.

[kphoger]

It's been called Juneteenth since way before white people even knew what it was.

Doesn't mean it's a good name.

Yeah, but it's not like it was concocted by a Hallmark algorithm last week or something.

Did I imply that?  Sorry if I did.  I didn't mean to imply that only White people could have come up with such a bad name for a holiday.  Vapidity is a multiracial phenomenon.

[CtrlAltDel]

Did I imply that?  Sorry if I did.  I didn't mean to imply that only White people could have come up with such a bad name for a holiday.  Vapidity is a multiracial phenomenon.

What.

[vdeane]

My gut tells me the latter condition would not be required if the Queen were to abdicate because her children are all legitimate offspring of a marriage recognized by the Church of England, whereas the issue in Edward VIII's case was that at the time the Church of England regarded a divorced person's remarriage as adulterous such that any offspring would have been illegitimate (the former Edward VIII was Wallis Simpson's third husband; both prior marriages ended in divorce).

That's ironic, considering that England split from the Roman Catholic Church so that Henry VIII could get a divorce and remarry in the hope of getting a male heir.

[kphoger]

My gut tells me the latter condition would not be required if the Queen were to abdicate because her children are all legitimate offspring of a marriage recognized by the Church of England, whereas the issue in Edward VIII's case was that at the time the Church of England regarded a divorced person's remarriage as adulterous such that any offspring would have been illegitimate (the former Edward VIII was Wallis Simpson's third husband; both prior marriages ended in divorce).

That's ironic, considering that England split from the Roman Catholic Church so that Henry VIII could get a divorce and remarry in the hope of getting a male heir.

Ah, but Henry and Catherine's marriage was technically annulled, meaning they weren't technically divorced.

– convinced nobody.

[Scott5114]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

The British people. I've seen it theorized that the only real thing that could incentivize the British people to overcome inertia and end the monarchy would be if the sovereign started regularly using their reserve powers (especially if it was done in a way that was counter to public opinion).

[kkt]

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything.

Actually, the British monarch has the legal authority to remove the Prime Minister from office.  That, you must admit, is quite a bit of power.  However, as I mentioned, this is held in balance by fact that the monarchy's importance lies at least partly in not becoming 'involved'.

I have the power to delete Alex's account. I can go to the admin panel, select his account, and click the delete button, and it's gone. But of course if I did that, I would expect that one of the other admins would desysop me as soon as it was discovered I did that, and I may not be welcome on this forum at all afterward.

So do I really have the power to delete Alex's account?

Well put.  The monarch's power to dismiss a prime minister can only be used if there's an awfully good reason.  For instance, if the PM would not resign when the other party just won a general election.  Or severely overstepping their powers.  The monarch knows they'd face all kinds of grief if they ever did it, so they'd only do it in an extreme situation.  After all, if the PM is commanding a majority in Parliament, they could execute the monarch or even disolve the monarchy...

[kkt]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

As you watch The Crown, keep in mind that it's a dramatisation.  Sometimes it's closely based on real events and real things people said... and other times it's less closely based.

All indications are that the Queen would never abdicate for various reasons, including her memory of her uncle's abdication and the problems that caused at the time, her sense of duty, and the potential ramifications for succession.

Yes, I'd be very surprised if the Queen abdicated.  Yes, it's duty for her, and she is honoring the oath she took at 21 to serve for her whole life.
There are options other than abdication for a lighter load:  She is already gradually delegating more duties to Charles and other royals.  She could ask for a regent to be appointed (who would probably also be Charles).

[Rothman]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

The British people. I've seen it theorized that the only real thing that could incentivize the British people to overcome inertia and end the monarchy would be if the sovereign started regularly using their reserve powers (especially if it was done in a way that was counter to public opinion).

Pfft.  Seems only possible on paper nowadays.

[bulldog1979]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

As you watch The Crown, keep in mind that it's a dramatisation.  Sometimes it's closely based on real events and real things people said... and other times it's less closely based.

All indications are that the Queen would never abdicate for various reasons, including her memory of her uncle's abdication and the problems that caused at the time, her sense of duty, and the potential ramifications for succession.

Yes, I'd be very surprised if the Queen abdicated.  Yes, it's duty for her, and she is honoring the oath she took at 21 to serve for her whole life.
There are options other than abdication for a lighter load:  She is already gradually delegating more duties to Charles and other royals.  She could ask for a regent to be appointed (who would probably also be Charles).

HM The Queen will not abdicate. She famously stated on her 21st birthday while on tour in South Africa: "I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." She will empower Counsellors of State to handle the most important tasks as needed, as she did when The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge opened Parliament in her stead this year, for example. Should her health completely fail her, we may see a regency. Until then, she'll continue to process her red boxes every day, receive the credentials of ambassadors (by Zoom, if necessary) and all the other various less public duties. She will continue to "advise, consent and warn" the Government of the day. Otherwise, they will only take the crown from her head (figuratively) to place it on her coffin (literally).

[bulldog1979]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

[Rothman]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

[US 89]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

Their land and the tourism they generate.

[kkt]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

Land ownership back to medieval times, often accruing to the crown through inheritance.  Land produces income and the income produces investment capital, which in turn produces more money.  Just like many wealthy families.

[Rothman]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

Land ownership back to medieval times, often accruing to the crown through inheritance.  Land produces income and the income produces investment capital, which in turn produces more money.  Just like many wealthy families.

And how did they acquire the land?

[kkt]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

Land ownership back to medieval times, often accruing to the crown through inheritance.  Land produces income and the income produces investment capital, which in turn produces more money.  Just like many wealthy families.

And how did they acquire the land?

"often through inheritance".  An heiress with land marries a prince.  In the course of time, the prince becomes king and eventually the king's son inherits both the prince's original land and what was added to it from the heiress.  Same thing happens with other aristocratic families.  Primogeniture tends to concentrate wealth, and nowhere more than in the royal family.  Doesn't mean there was anything nefarious going on.

[Scott5114]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

One misconception is that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized. Rather The Crown Estate, owned by the Sovereign in an official capacity supports the Royal Family. CGP Grey explained the situation well in a video. In short, the Royal Family pays for itself and part of the government.

From where did the wealth originate...?

Land ownership back to medieval times, often accruing to the crown through inheritance.  Land produces income and the income produces investment capital, which in turn produces more money.  Just like many wealthy families.

And how did they acquire the land?

"often through inheritance".  An heiress with land marries a prince.  In the course of time, the prince becomes king and eventually the king's son inherits both the prince's original land and what was added to it from the heiress.  Same thing happens with other aristocratic families.  Primogeniture tends to concentrate wealth, and nowhere more than in the royal family.  Doesn't mean there was anything nefarious going on.

And how did a heiress of sufficient stature to marry a prince get the land?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

[kphoger]

And how did a heiress of sufficient stature to marry a prince get the land?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

So...  Your argument that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized is based on a system that hasn't existed in Britain since 1660?  That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

That's a bit like saying BNSF workers' salaries are subsidized by American Indians because at some point the railroad stole their land and now profits from it.

[Rothman]

And how did a heiress of sufficient stature to marry a prince get the land?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

So...  Your argument that the Royal Family is publicly subsidized is based on a system that hasn't existed in Britain since 1660?  That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

That's a bit like saying BNSF workers' salaries are subsidized by American Indians because at some point the railroad stole their land and now profits from it.

Yes, we better ignore the history altogether and focus on how the modern monarchy is a boon to the UK.

[webny99]

Clothes are overrated.

Well at the very least, spending a ton of money on "name brand" clothes that are the same or only marginally better quality is overrated.

Sorry, I should clarify.  Wearing clothes is overrated.

Honestly, we'd be fine half the year without them.

Don't know why this came back to mind, but...

I agree if you're talking about the half of the year when you're asleep and/or at home with no one else around 

[Max Rockatansky]

Clothes are overrated.

Well at the very least, spending a ton of money on "name brand" clothes that are the same or only marginally better quality is overrated.

Sorry, I should clarify.  Wearing clothes is overrated.

Honestly, we'd be fine half the year without them.

Don't know why this came back to mind, but...

I agree if you're talking about the half of the year when you're asleep and/or at home with no one else around 

Clothes are okay in my book.  The unclothed form of the human body generally isn't anything worth seeing and generally overrated.

[webny99]

The unclothed form of the human body generally isn't anything worth seeing and generally overrated.

Definitely agreed as to all public settings. I wouldn't be seen unclothed (not even usually shirtless) anywhere outside my house. I was more referring to the comfort factor at home for leisure activities and especially sleeping.

[kphoger]

Clothes are overrated.

Well at the very least, spending a ton of money on "name brand" clothes that are the same or only marginally better quality is overrated.

Sorry, I should clarify.  Wearing clothes is overrated.

Honestly, we'd be fine half the year without them.

Don't know why this came back to mind, but...

I agree if you're talking about the half of the year when you're asleep and/or at home with no one else around 

I often mow the lawn in just a pair of shorts.  What good do the shorts really do, other than cover up the parts of my body that literally everyone else in the world has?  (Well, only half of them have that one part...)

The unclothed form of the human body generally isn't anything worth seeing and generally overrated.

The clothed form of the human body isn't really all that much better or worse, in my opinion.  It's just a body, either way.

[webny99]

I often mow the lawn in just a pair of shorts.  What good do the shorts really do, other than cover up the parts of my body that literally everyone else in the world has?  (Well, only half of them have that one part...)

Well in a civilized society, that's a pretty important thing to do. Your neighbors might not care, but chances are some of them would.

Shorts could also provide protection from sticks or stones or other small flying objects (similar to why I was taught you should always wear shoes while mowing the lawn).

[kphoger]

Your neighbors might not care, but chances are some of them would.

Well, of course they care.  If they didn't then I would be saying clothes are overrated, now, would I?  If nobody cares about an issue, then the issue isn't overrated.

Shorts could also provide protection from sticks or stones or other small flying objects (similar to why I was taught you should always wear shoes while mowing the lawn).

Long pants do way more to protect a person from small flying objects, but I don't wear them while mowing.

[webny99]

Your neighbors might not care, but chances are some of them would.

Well, of course they care.  If they didn't then I would be saying clothes are overrated, now, would I?  If nobody cares about an issue, then the issue isn't overrated.

They might care about the societal expectations more so than the actual act of wearing clothing. In other words, it's possible that "society" overrates clothing more so than any one individual person does.

And I'm not entirely disagreeing that clothes are overrated, by the way. I agree in certain contexts, but lawn mowing is one of those activities that kind of depends. If your question is what good does wearing shorts do, I guess mine would be, what good does not wearing shorts do? I can't imagine that convenience or comfort factors are that big of a deal, as compared to going shirtless or barefoot, which I get.

Long pants do way more to protect a person from small flying objects, but I don't wear them while mowing.

Suffice to say, shorts still cover the basics.