its a load of stone age bullshit

the point LeighShelton is making, as far as i perceive it, is that a younger british royal keeps banging on about the dangers of population growth while himself procreating effusively - i think it's called hypocrisy. the english people also support the royals' lavish life style more than generously. [en.wikipedia.org]

@walklightly exactly, well said. most of their wealth is not their own. I don't think any government is better. what does freckle mean? why does so-called celebrity have to tell everyone there doing something good if not too blow their own trumpet? I'm sick of seeing that buffoon trump too. humans and especially rich humans just abuse this planet born with a silver spoon up their arse. princess Anne isn't all in the public eye all the time so it's not like they have too. this world needs way less of this greed going on.

@walklightly so three children is "procreating effusively". I thought the absolutely average, statistically bog standard family has 2.4 children. That means some must have had a third child.
Remember, I come from Africa, where state pensions rarely exist and where children are "security in old age". The more children, the more you had the better the guarantee for your future. Bear in mind that for centuries most people had died pretty young. So families with over 6 children are commonplace.
In 1962 Kenya's population was 8 million. Tanganyika (plus the island state of Zanzibar) had 10 million and Uganda only 6 and a half million.
Now, 55 years later, the numbers are Kenya - 48 million (a 6 fold increase.) Tanganyika (now called Tanzania after Tanganyika instigated a revolution in Zanzibar and then annexed the island) now has a population of 55 million (just under a 6 fold increase) and Uganda, has 41 million, despite all the wars and terrible carnage of the period between 1970 and 1985, has a population of 41 million (just over a 6 fold increase.)
To put that into perspective, the USA population has increased by 1.3 over the same period. Britain's figure is 1.4 times as many, yet both countries have seen heavy immigration.
This is what he was talking about.

@walklightly, @LeighShelton Rather than knee-jerk, republican rhetoric, please read this article, and you will understand why I am pragmatic on the monarchy issue.
[independent.co.uk]

@Petter no, I don't want too. just google population growth or watch a few David Attenborough wildlife programs and you will realise why I don't care for humans or greed and never had children.

@LeighShelton If you do not care for humans, what are you doing on this site, tell me?

@Petter most humans. I'm doing what I like

@LeighShelton True artistic temperament. I'm an overly logical engineer.

@Petter indeed

no, i won't read the article, @Petter. i am not in favor of keeping monarchies alive via the people's money. look up the definition of monarchy, & please, acknowledge the anarchist in me

@walklightly ... and the pragmatist in me.

so true

I remember when the socialist prime minister of Norway, was asked if he didn't find it strange that Norway, one of the most socialistic nations in the world, was a monarchy.
His reply summed it up perfectly. It is a constitutional monarchy, which therefore has no real power, but it saves us from many of the tiresome burdens of being the political leader of a nation, for instance entertaining foreign visitors of little real importance.
Then there is the advantage of not subjecting the nation to the high costs and political distraction of having to hold an acrimonious presidential election every 5 years, over and above a general election.
And unlike in a republic, what's the point of assassination?
And finally, each and every ex-president costs the nation untold amounts in round the clock security and pensions for many years.
Monarchy is a most pragmatic solution.

fuck yes I love what you just said lol. look what happened to lady Dianna when she tried to marry a Muslim.

a lot of that to boot my friend.