deleted

Priscilla, you are the bravest woman I know.  


Back later - when I've taken a couple of basha-blockers.

Here you are P, now duck.

Do you mean Royalty with absolute authority over the state and people P, or Royalty that only plays at being Royalty like now?

The benefits of the former would be....the Brexit shite.

The trouble with getting rid of the royals is you might get trumped.

(btw - does "trump" mean "break wind from the anal sphincter" anywhere other than around here?)

deleted

Priscilla wrote:

...There's been a lot of it about and its evolution is interesting.

Priscilla's use of the word "evolution" triggered a memory of something I read as a teenager: Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. Obvious now, but Morris noted how the "leaders" of the animal kingdom were always the biggest, the strongest and, when necessary, the most aggressive of the animals in the pack or tribe. But clearly there was evolution, and cunning also became a necessary quality if one wanted to be a top ape.

When did the human - the naked ape -  idea of "kingship" evolve, then - with wisdom and the ability to be a just ruler becoming more important qualities in a leader than mere size, strength and a fearsome, nastily cunning nature? Were the very early "kings" (and actually where did the first monarchs originate - Mesopotamia?) more priests than military leaders? The ideal Jewish "Messiah", or "anointed one", was after all, seen as a combination of priest and warrior, preferably more of the latter than the former. The godly stuff usually came after a fair bit of smiting of the enemies of Israel had been effected.

So was the elevation of one of the tribe to the position of "king" originally simply a matter of protection against enemies, both internal and external, such protection being a pretty important perceived benefit?

The early Romans had kings of course, but didn't the Romans - ahead of the game as usual - simply realise that the concept of an hereditary monarchy was a pretty stupid one? What ever happened to Tarquin and why? Was he too arrogant and superbus to be much of a lasting benefit to anyone?

deleted

Well, the Sumerians did have both of the concepts you ascribe to a Jewish Messiah - but not always embodied in one person. The fragmentary pre-Gilgamesh epics of Enmerkar (an ensi) and Lugulbanda (a lugal) display the two attributes quite nicely - Enmerkar as tricky as Odysseus, Lugulbanda an archetypal warrior-king.

Re Tarquin - I doubt if the plebs were really interested in seeing him removed - the "peoples uprising against the monarch" is, I contend, normally only successful when it is actually the nobility who lead it.

deleted

Gil, my grandson uses 'trump' with the meaning you gave.  Their mother is Welsh and his first 3 years were spent in Yorkshire.  I don't think it is a usual word for farting in NZ.

As regards the benefits of royalty and sticking to Britain, I never understand the British resentment of their royal family - it is what sets Britain apart form other countries (not all of them of course, but the usual ones tourists visit).  The royal family must bring in far more revenue than they cost - especially since when they travel overseas my understanding (based on the complaints of locals) is that the hosting country pays.  And without them we would hardly hear anything of Britain here.  (Brexit excepted.)  The royal family keep magazines going, especially now that we no longer have Brangelina. 

And taking on Gil's further point, what is the option?  The expense of a US-style election?  The corruption and upheaval of other places?