The haves and the "have-yachts"

[Dimond Geezer]

Good thread title, BTW!

 

I'm not sure the OP can garner too much credit for it though. I'm sure I heard Cleggy use it when this first blew up, unless Cleggy reads this forum of course.

[badgerx16]

"Royalty pollutes people's minds. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was."

 

( Terry Pratchett - 'Men at Arms' )

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What exactly are we electing a replacement to do?

 

This is a very good point.

 

The head of state should have no role in law or policy making as this is surely the preserve of an elected government. So with no meaningful manifesto to decide on we're left with a mere popularity contest with the winner being the best funded or most telegenic candidate. We're more than likely to end up with some ambitious celebrity or past-it politician.

 

On the basis that you can't fix something that's not broken I think we're better off as we are thank you very much.

[Verbal]

"Royalty pollutes people's minds. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was."

 

( Terry Pratchett - 'Men at Arms' )

 

I like that. But I'm sure most Royalists are barely skin-deep, and are hung up on a mummy-fixation. As soon as QE2 is gone, jug-ears is on point - and the clamour to get rid of the meddling oaf will be deafening.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I like that. But I'm sure most Royalists are barely skin-deep, and are hung up on a mummy-fixation. As soon as QE2 is gone, jug-ears is on point - and the clamour to get rid of the meddling oaf will be deafening.

 

I am not so sure. I think as the referendum on AV showed we British like our traditions and institutions. You could be people hating for many years to come yet Verbal.

[Saintandy666]

This is a very good point.

 

The head of state should have no role in law or policy making as this is surely the preserve of an elected government. So with no meaningful manifesto to decide on we're left with a mere popularity contest with the winner being the best funded or most telegenic candidate. We're more than likely to end up with some ambitious celebrity or past-it politician.

 

On the basis that you can't fix something that's not broken I think we're better off as we are thank you very much.

 

Well, that's just not true at all as you are looking at it through the prism of the current system.

 

In places like the US and France, they certainly do not elect celebrities to become President.

 

All it means is that we will elect our legislature separately to our executive, thus enhancing choice and democracy.

 

Like I said, I don't mind our model so much that it is a priority, other things like lords reform and electoral reform need to come first...

 

But it's really silly to have the if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude. If we all had that attitude we'd still be living in the dark ages. What we must do is keep those bits which are good, but where improvement can be made, make it.

[Saintandy666]

I am not so sure. I think as the referendum on AV showed we British like our traditions and institutions. You could be people hating for many years to come yet Verbal.

 

I think that was more because people didn't like AV. If there was a vote on PR, the result would be very different and Cameron knows it, hence why he only offered AV.

[Verbal]

This is a very good point.

 

The head of state should have no role in law or policy making as this is surely the preserve of an elected government. So with no meaningful manifesto to decide on we're left with a mere popularity contest with the winner being the best funded or most telegenic candidate. We're more than likely to end up with some ambitious celebrity or past-it politician.

 

On the basis that you can't fix something that's not broken I think we're better off as we are thank you very much.

 

It's not a good point at all, because it ignores, or is unaware of, the underlying constitutional principles.

 

However the relationship between them is defined, there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the administration. In the United States and in many other mature democracies, the relationship is defined by 'separation' and 'balance'. So in the US, for example, the President is the head of the executive branch and the House and Senate speakers are the heads of the legislature. In the UK, by contrast, we fuzz up the relationship between the executive and the legislature in such a way as to produce what is an elected - and sometimes unelected - dictatorship. The Prime Minister is de facto head of the executive and the legislature, and party discipline ensures that one of the principles of the UK's unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, is thoroughly undermined by this. (And this is especially true when we have PMs who ascend to their position after a party putsch - as with Callaghan, Major, Brown, etc).

 

A properly written constitution, with a clearly defined separation of powers may lead to something like a directly elected Prime Minister, a separate general election for MPs, and a properly reformed House of Lords. Two of the consequences of this would be greater democracy and greater accountability.

 

Not a bad price to pay for packing the 'Windsors' off to Mme Guillotine.

[pap]

I'm not sure the OP can garner too much credit for it though. I'm sure I heard Cleggy use it when this first blew up, unless Cleggy reads this forum of course.

 

Nope, I cannot - was all over Twitter the morning I started the post.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Well, that's just not true at all as you are looking at it through the prism of the current system.

 

In places like the US and France, they certainly do not elect celebrities to become President.

 

All it means is that we will elect our legislature separately to our executive, thus enhancing choice and democracy.

 

Like I said, I don't mind our model so much that it is a priority, other things like lords reform and electoral reform need to come first...

 

But it's really silly to have the if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude. If we all had that attitude we'd still be living in the dark ages. What we must do is keep those bits which are good, but where improvement can be made, make it.

 

So we elect another politician. Have we not got enough of these.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think that was more because people didn't like AV. If there was a vote on PR, the result would be very different and Cameron knows it, hence why he only offered AV.

 

People simply do not like change. Change only happens when people have not got enough to eat and they blame the democratic process.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It's not a good point at all, because it ignores, or is unaware of, the underlying constitutional principles.

 

However the relationship between them is defined, there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the administration. In the United States and in many other mature democracies, the relationship is defined by 'separation' and 'balance'. So in the US, for example, the President is the head of the executive branch and the House and Senate speakers are the heads of the legislature. In the UK, by contrast, we fuzz up the relationship between the executive and the legislature in such a way as to produce what is an elected - and sometimes unelected - dictatorship. The Prime Minister is de facto head of the executive and the legislature, and party discipline ensures that one of the principles of the UK's unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, is thoroughly undermined by this. (And this is especially true when we have PMs who ascend to their position after a party putsch - as with Callaghan, Major, Brown, etc).

 

A properly written constitution, with a clearly defined separation of powers may lead to something like a directly elected Prime Minister, a separate general election for MPs, and a properly reformed House of Lords. Two of the consequences of this would be greater democracy and greater accountability.

 

Not a bad price to pay for packing the 'Windsors' off to Mme Guillotine.

 

As ever, very eloquently put apart from the fact that you ignore the fact that the Queen's role is purely ceremonial - on paper she may have power but in reality if she exercised it she would be out on her ear. So what is the point of dismantling something that finacially justifys itself, is key to the UK brand and give's us a bit of identity. It sounds like you want to create a role for another slimey politician.

[Verbal]

As ever, very eloquently put apart from the fact that you ignore the fact that the Queen's role is purely ceremonial - on paper she may have power but in reality if she exercised it she would be out on her ear. So what is the point of dismantling something that finacially justifys itself, is key to the UK brand and give's us a bit of identity. It sounds like you want to create a role for another slimey politician.

 

As I say, all will seem like a cloudless sky when QE2 is gone, jug ears is in, and the monarchy suddenly seems as hopelessly anachronistic as it is. You're factually wrong, of course, about the 'merely ceremonial' - or did you miss the recent scandal about Blair, Brown and Cameron having to get jug ears' nod (?!) for certain key bits of legislation.

 

If all politicians are, as you say, 'slimy', then why bother with democracy at all? Just bring back Mussolini - at least the trains will run on time...

 

In any case, having a PM's election constitutionally separated from the general election may well, as it has in other countries, diminish the 'slime' factor. Directly elected heads tend to act in the national interest rather than mere party affiliation - their electoral success almost always depends upon it. And if that's true, then once again, it's good for democracy.

 

As for royalty 'financially justifying itself' - that's historically wildly inaccurate. 'Royalty' was all but bankrupt before the theft of public (mostly common and coastal) land parcelled up into the Duchys.

Edited 19 January, 2012 by Verbal

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Not really factually wrong as Prince Charles was acting off his own back not in any legal capacity - they could tell him to get stuffed. Do you really believe that the Queen would not be sent packing if she tried to exercise the power that she has on paper or if she was not perceived to be politically neutral. In that sense her role is purely ceremonial and to act as an ambassador for the nation. She does a brilliant job at that so why get rid of her so you can have another politician.

 

I would suggest another scenario which is very realistic. The Queen dies and their is wave of soppy national sentimentalism about the Royal family. The Coronation is watched by a global audience of however many billion as is the funeral. A million people line the streets to see the new King.

 

My experience of politicians today is that they act in their own interests and not the nations- the side effect of the career politician that the system now encourages.

[Whitey Grandad]

A royalty is much cheaper than a republic. The cost of presidential elections alone would be more than the current Civil List. And do you really want a president Prescott, Kinnock, Brown, Livingstone or even Portillo?

[alpine_saint]

It's not a good point at all, because it ignores, or is unaware of, the underlying constitutional principles.

 

However the relationship between them is defined, there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the administration. In the United States and in many other mature democracies, the relationship is defined by 'separation' and 'balance'. So in the US, for example, the President is the head of the executive branch and the House and Senate speakers are the heads of the legislature. In the UK, by contrast, we fuzz up the relationship between the executive and the legislature in such a way as to produce what is an elected - and sometimes unelected - dictatorship. The Prime Minister is de facto head of the executive and the legislature, and party discipline ensures that one of the principles of the UK's unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, is thoroughly undermined by this. (And this is especially true when we have PMs who ascend to their position after a party putsch - as with Callaghan, Major, Brown, etc).

 

A properly written constitution, with a clearly defined separation of powers may lead to something like a directly elected Prime Minister, a separate general election for MPs, and a properly reformed House of Lords. Two of the consequences of this would be greater democracy and greater accountability.

 

Not a bad price to pay for packing the 'Windsors' off to Mme Guillotine.

 

Wow, another pompous lecture....

[Lord Duckhunter]

A royalty is much cheaper than a republic. The cost of presidential elections alone would be more than the current Civil List. And do you really want a president Prescott, Kinnock, Brown, Livingstone or even Portillo?

 

If it was just about money, why dont we let Bill Gates pay £1billion a year into the coffers and let him be King. After all it'll be much cheaper than what we have at present.

 

As for President Kinnock ect, you appear to be saying that the British people are so stupid that we can not allow them to have a vote. We bombed the hell out of Libya, killed millions of Iraqi's to despose of leaders who came to power in exactly the same way as our Royals did. Perhaps we should have advised the Libyan's to stick with Gaddafi as it will cost less than having elections and a democracy. They may also vote for a leader that you dont want, we cant have that now can we?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If it was just about money, why dont we let Bill Gates pay £1billion a year into the coffers and let him be King. After all it'll be much cheaper than what we have at present.

 

As for President Kinnock ect, you appear to be saying that the British people are so stupid that we can not allow them to have a vote. We bombed the hell out of Libya, killed millions of Iraqi's to despose of leaders who came to power in exactly the same way as our Royals did. Perhaps we should have advised the Libyan's to stick with Gaddafi as it will cost less than having elections and a democracy. They may also vote for a leader that you dont want, we cant have that now can we?

 

The core of this thread is about money.

[Verbal]

The core of this thread is about money.

 

Nope. It's about living in a grown-up, well developed liberal democracy where we do not fawn over the ludicrous antics of a self-selected, and by definition, inbred bunch of ingrates, who continue to represent all that's worst about the aristocracy.

 

If - and it wouldn't be true, but if - a properly written constitution was constructed and the consequence of more democracy and openness and greater expense were more expensive, it would still be far, far preferable to the pathetic situation we have now. One of the consequences of a political system with royals at the apex is a disillusionment with politics and politicians that is bad for democracy. Either we believe in the latter or we don't. and if we do, the royals have to booted out on their inbred arses.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Nope. It's about living in a grown-up, well developed liberal democracy where we do not fawn over the ludicrous antics of a self-selected, and by definition, inbred bunch of ingrates, who continue to represent all that's worst about the aristocracy.

 

If - and it wouldn't be true, but if - a properly written constitution was constructed and the consequence of more democracy and openness and greater expense were more expensive, it would still be far, far preferable to the pathetic situation we have now. One of the consequences of a political system with royals at the apex is a disillusionment with politics and politicians that is bad for democracy. Either we believe in the latter or we don't. and if we do, the royals have to booted out on their inbred arses.

 

You seem to have forgotton that the thread title focus's on the cost of the yacht.

 

Our democracy functions very well as was proved by the overwhelming support in the recent referendum. If the people are happy with our system then would it not be undemocratic to change it?

[Verbal]

You seem to have forgotton that the thread title focus's on the cost of the yacht.

 

Our democracy functions very well as was proved by the overwhelming support in the recent referendum. If the people are happy with our system then would it not be undemocratic to change it?

 

True enough, but the cost of the yacht is not the same issue as the cost of the 'Windsors'. The reason for objecting to the cost of the yacht is that the royals are a god-awful waste of space.

Edited 19 January, 2012 by Verbal

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

True enough, but the cost of the yacht is not the same issue as the cost of the 'Windsors'. The reason for objecting to the cost of the yacht is that royals are a god-awful waste of space.

 

You prejudices are distorting your ability to argue. Finacially the Windsors more than justify themselves for what they bring to the UK brand, you should be able top recognise that.

 

We live in a country where you can tell who you like you think the Queen is a tosser; isn't that wonderful? I think so.

[Verbal]

You prejudices are distorting your ability to argue. Finacially the Windsors more than justify themselves for what they bring to the UK brand, you should be able top recognise that.

 

No, they really don't. Their theft of public land to form the Duchys is the source of their wealth. Return that land to the public (managed, say, by the National Trust), throw open the palaces and castles (ditto), and display their privately stored art collections (including QE2's - she's amassed the finest collection of Leonardos in private hands as a result of the earnings from the Duchys). FAR more money will be made be discontinued royals than can ever be made with them.

 

QE2 is close to the end of her days. I personally can't stand the woman but that's just my opinion. Her replacement is jug ears. Care to give your impassioned defence of him?

[buctootim]

No, they really don't. Their theft of public land to form the Duchys is the source of their wealth. Return that land to the public (managed, say, by the National Trust), throw open the palaces and castles (ditto), and display their privately stored art collections (including QE2's - she's amassed the finest collection of Leonardos in private hands as a result of the earnings from the Duchys).

 

Why stop there? You could nationalise without compensation any property which has been obtained at some stage in any less than fair way. The situation with the Crown Estates is far less objectionable than many.

[Verbal]

The situation with the Crown Estates is far less objectionable than many.

 

Why?

 

Besides, you misunderstand how the Duchys were created if you think that restoring common and coastal lands is 'nationalisation'. 'Nationalistion' of a peculiarlarly elitist kind was what happened in the first place!

Edited 19 January, 2012 by Verbal

[buctootim]

If for no other reason than it all happened a very long time ago and all the people directly affected are dead.

[Verbal]

If for no other reason than it all happened a very long time ago and all the people directly affected are dead.

 

All the people who very directly benefit from the Duchys are very much alive. In any case, as a country, WE are directly affected by the closure of vast tracts of our own land and its handing over to the 'Windsors' (a name which QE2 views with sufficient distaste as to restore the German part of their surname to Royals not in the direct line of accession).

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

No, they really don't. Their theft of public land to form the Duchys is the source of their wealth. Return that land to the public (managed, say, by the National Trust), throw open the palaces and castles (ditto), and display their privately stored art collections (including QE2's - she's amassed the finest collection of Leonardos in private hands as a result of the earnings from the Duchys). FAR more money will be made be discontinued royals than can ever be made with them.

 

QE2 is close to the end of her days. I personally can't stand the woman but that's just my opinion. Her replacement is jug ears. Care to give your impassioned defence of him?

 

You ignore the role that they play on the World stage representing our nation generating goodwill and hopefully contracts. You also seem to not understand that the fascination the World has with them is because they are still active in public life. People can go and see them in the flesh; they can see the changing of the guard or the Trooping of the Colour. If you think that taking their palaces and lands away from them is going to generate more for the nation because people can pay a fiver and go and visit them then you are delusional or stupid. I wouldn't worry about jug ears its the Wills and Kate you should worry about more. Anyway as it happens I think that you may well be right that when the Queen goes then the role of the Royal family will be examined. I don't think it will go just be cut down a bit. It is also likely that when she does go there will be a sentimental surge for the institution.

 

You should be less chippy and more rational.

Edited 19 January, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Verbal]

You ignore the role that they play on the World stage representing our nation generating goodwill and hopefully contracts. You also seem to not understand that the fascination the World has with them is because they are still active in public life. People can go and see them in the flesh; they can see the changing of the guard or the Trooping of the Colour. If you think that taking their palaces and lands away from them is going to generate more for the nation because people can pay a fiver and go and visit them then you are delusional or stupid. I wouldn't worry about jug ears its the Wills and Kate you should worry about more. Anyway as it happens I think that you may well be right that when the Queen goes then the role of the Royal family will be examined. I don't think it will go just be cut down a bit. It is also likely that when she does go there will be a sentimental surge for the institution.

 

You should be less chippy and more rational.

 

Happily, you're wrong in just about everything you've written. I know how dedicated, brown-nosing royalists revel in the fantasy that their pin-ups, Wills and Kate, will 'ascend' (!!) to the throne, instead of jug ears. But they won't. A simple understanding of the history of accession should tell you that.

 

And why are republicans called 'chippy'? I don't get it. It's a weird and rather brainless attempt at a putdown, based on the assumption (which is probably too strong a word) that the royals represent some kind of natural order.

 

There's also a good argument supporting the case that the royals have been at the pinnacle of a system which has contributed to the UK's economic decline and increasing redundancy on the international stage. Either way, though, I'm perfectly confident that jug ears is such a meddling imbecile that the monarchy will be falling about his oversized lobes long before your Mills-and-Boon fantasy couple get their mitts anywhere near the throne.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You are wrong in that if we were expected to be brown nosing Royalists then they would not be around.

 

Chippy - resentful or oversensitive about being perceived as inferior. I think that is quite appropriate.

 

The Queen, with no effective power, has overseen the economic decline of our nation - you are being delusional now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You ignore the role that they play on the World stage representing our nation generating goodwill and hopefully contracts. You also seem to not understand that the fascination the World has with them is because they are still active in public life. People can go and see them in the flesh; they can see the changing of the guard or the Trooping of the Colour. If you think that taking their palaces and lands away from them is going to generate more for the nation because people can pay a fiver and go and visit them then you are delusional or stupid. I wouldn't worry about jug ears its the Wills and Kate you should worry about more. Anyway as it happens I think that you may well be right that when the Queen goes then the role of the Royal family will be examined. I don't think it will go just be cut down a bit. It is also likely that when she does go there will be a sentimental surge for the institution.

 

 

So you're happy for our head of state to be just one big tourist attraction. An upmarket Mickey Mouse, rather than the head of a modern 21st century Country. A Country I may add ,that goes around bombing, lecturing and generaly feeling smug in the name of "democracy". Whilst we bow and suck up to the Royals, we go around telling Iraqi's, Afghan's and Libyan's who should or should not be their head of state.

 

I find the whole thing a bit strange. It what other walk of life would people accept Heredity sucession. What would we say if Nigel Adkin's first born automatically became Saints Manager, upon Nige's retirement?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So you're happy for our head of state to be just one big tourist attraction. An upmarket Mickey Mouse, rather than the head of a modern 21st century Country. A Country I may add ,that goes around bombing, lecturing and generaly feeling smug in the name of "democracy". Whilst we bow and suck up to the Royals, we go around telling Iraqi's, Afghan's and Libyan's who should or should not be their head of state.

 

I find the whole thing a bit strange. It what other walk of life would people accept Heredity sucession. What would we say if Nigel Adkin's first born automatically became Saints Manager, upon Nige's retirement?

 

Your comparison to Micky Mouse is somewhat flawed. I think they contribute a lot to the UK brand. They have real power so why is it such an issue - as I said before you can call her a tosser if you want and nobody will come and knock on your door late at night, I am surprised you cannot see the difference? Who is it that is sucking up to the the Royals, I have never even seen them.

[pap]

Your comparison to Micky Mouse is somewhat flawed. I think they contribute a lot to the UK brand. They have real power so why is it such an issue - as I said before you can call her a tosser if you want and nobody will come and knock on your door late at night, I am surprised you cannot see the difference? Who is it that is sucking up to the the Royals, I have never even seen them.

 

Lord D's point about being hereditary succession is well made though. The last Labour government was successful in lowering the number of hereditary peers, and was rightly praised for it. If we don't think it's right that members of the House of Lords should be determined by bloodline, it seems odd our head of state is determined in that way.

 

I'm not disputing that we have freedom of speech, but that's a long way short of being a legitimate and competent democracy. We get to choose an MP. Once they're returned, they'll mostly do whatever the party leadership tells them to, frequently against public opinion. We get to see the odd u-turn, such as we've seen with Michael Gove, but the big stuff, like going to war, or not having a referendum on the EU, seems to go through pretty smoothly.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories were using Gove as an autonomous gaffe factory.

 

"Hey kids, it's Michael Gove. What will he dream up next? (don't ask us about the economy, or why some of your anti-EU MPs turned coat and denied you a referendum)"

[Saintandy666]

So we elect another politician. Have we not got enough of these.

 

I don't really see how there would be 'more politicians' and even if there was, I'd prefer someone elected.

 

The only difference would be Cameron, Clegg and Miliband competing for President as opposed to for a parliamentary seat.

[revolution saint]

You ignore the role that they play on the World stage representing our nation generating goodwill and hopefully contracts. You also seem to not understand that the fascination the World has with them is because they are still active in public life. People can go and see them in the flesh; they can see the changing of the guard or the Trooping of the Colour. If you think that taking their palaces and lands away from them is going to generate more for the nation because people can pay a fiver and go and visit them then you are delusional or stupid. I wouldn't worry about jug ears its the Wills and Kate you should worry about more. Anyway as it happens I think that you may well be right that when the Queen goes then the role of the Royal family will be examined. I don't think it will go just be cut down a bit. It is also likely that when she does go there will be a sentimental surge for the institution.

 

You should be less chippy and more rational.

 

And so it comes down to sentimentality, tradition and fear of an alternative that have become a lynchpin for defending the Monarchy. None of those reasons are sophisticated or stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure anyone, not even monarchists, would say this is a fair system (which in itself should be enough to bring the institution down) so I won't bother going down that road - republicans always win that argument. Instead let's talk about an alternative. Can anyone give me a reason why we need an alternative? What would be in the job description? No one so far has come up with any compelling reason why the current functions of mrs windsor couldn't be carried out by the elected government of the day.

 

Unless anyone can point out why it's necessary to have a presidential replacement to do the square root of nothing then I think it's fair to say that we can get rid of an anachronistic, out dated institution without fear of any consequences.

[Verbal]

Lord D's point about being hereditary succession is well made though. The last Labour government was successful in lowering the number of hereditary peers, and was rightly praised for it. If we don't think it's right that members of the House of Lords should be determined by bloodline, it seems odd our head of state is determined in that way.

 

I'm not disputing that we have freedom of speech, but that's a long way short of being a legitimate and competent democracy. We get to choose an MP. Once they're returned, they'll mostly do whatever the party leadership tells them to, frequently against public opinion. We get to see the odd u-turn, such as we've seen with Michael Gove, but the big stuff, like going to war, or not having a referendum on the EU, seems to go through pretty smoothly.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories were using Gove as an autonomous gaffe factory.

 

"Hey kids, it's Michael Gove. What will he dream up next? (don't ask us about the economy, or why some of your anti-EU MPs turned coat and denied you a referendum)"

 

You're being too generous in one sense. The idea that the royals have ANYTHING to do with freedom of speech is doubly wrong, and has no place in this argument.

 

First, any reasonable understanding of British history will tell you that freedoms such as speech and assembly were wrestled from the monarchy in the teeth of bitter opposition.

 

As to the extent of that freedom of speech, it's worth remembering that Britain's uniquely draconian (for a Western democracy) libel laws limit freedom of speech in a way that would completely unthinkable in, say, the United States.

 

We have nothing to thank the Royals for. On the contrary, they should be ashamed of even being a silent party to the idiotic Gove's 'chief option' to shovel £60m more of our money to the spongers.

[pap]

You're being too generous in one sense. The idea that the royals have ANYTHING to do with freedom of speech is doubly wrong, and has no place in this argument.

 

First, any reasonable understanding of British history will tell you that freedoms such as speech and assembly were wrestled from the monarchy in the teeth of bitter opposition.

 

As to the extent of that freedom of speech, it's worth remembering that Britain's uniquely draconian (for a Western democracy) libel laws limit freedom of speech in a way that would completely unthinkable in, say, the United States.

 

We have nothing to thank the Royals for. On the contrary, they should be ashamed of even being a silent party to the idiotic Gove's 'chief option' to shovel £60m more of our money to the spongers.

 

For clarity, I wasn't making the link between the Royals and freedom of speech.

 

Sergei was using the fact that you can call the Queen a tosser without being thrown in the Tower to demonstrate that we have a working democracy. I think we should expect a little more.

[Verbal]

For clarity, I wasn't making the link between the Royals and freedom of speech.

 

Sergei was using the fact that you can call the Queen a tosser without being thrown in the Tower to demonstrate that we have a working democracy. I think we should expect a little more.

 

That's what happens with monarchies - a genuflecting,ever-so-'umble, appreciation for the small crumbs off the top table becomes a mindset so limiting that the highly qualified freedom of speech we have is gratefully accepted as evidence of something worth cherishing. It isn't, and they aren't.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Some highly amusing recent contributions, you can almost taste the bile !

 

But there still room for improvement, so can I please ask the Republican Party (MP's elected = 0) if they would be so kind as to get together in a small room and come up with some sort of consistent argument, as the 'scattergun' approach adopted so far makes it rather difficult to know which of the numerous incoherent arguments being put forward a chap is supposed to take seriously.

 

Oh, while we're on the subject the forum still awaits any explanation as to why the great British public seem so stubbornly resistant to all this 'bin the constitution' malarkey.

 

Ta very muchly

[pap]

Some highly amusing recent contributions, you can almost taste the bile !

 

But there still room for improvement, so can I please ask the Republican Party (MP's elected = 0) if they would be so kind as to get together in a small room and come up with some sort of consistent argument, as the 'scattergun' approach adopted so far makes it rather difficult to know which of the numerous incoherent arguments being put forward a chap is supposed to take seriously.

 

Oh, while we're on the subject the forum still awaits any explanation as to why the great British public seem so stubbornly resistant to all this 'bin the constitution' malarkey.

 

Ta very muchly

 

I don't think so, CEC. The British public are broadly apathetic rather than stubbornly resistant. Turnout figures for recent elections back this up.

 

And constitution? What constitution? You can't bin something that has never been written.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

But there still room for improvement, so can I please ask the Republican Party (MP's elected = 0) if they would be so kind as to get together in a small room and come up with some sort of consistent argument, as the 'scattergun' approach adopted so far makes it rather difficult to know which of the numerous incoherent arguments being put forward a chap is supposed to take seriously.

 

 

There are republican's in Parliament, so there are republican MP's from the main parties (granted I doubt whether there's many Torys that fall into that category).

 

Comparing what republican's want to the USA president( as some have done in this thread) is misleading and wrong. The US is a Federal Govt, and the president plays a political role in that. Nobody I've seen is advocating that to replace the Royals.It is more in line with the Irish, where The president is a mainly ceremonial office.The Taoiseach is the Prime Minister who runs the country.

 

The Royal supporters keep telling us the The Queen would never use her powers, is a ceremonial role, and is not political.They then use the counter arguement that we dont want a politican as head of state, and that it will be a minefield replacing her constitutionally.It can't be both, if she is just a figure head who would never weald any real power, then she should be easy to get rid of.

 

I believe that every British person is born equal, you clearly dont.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I don't think so, CEC. The British public are broadly apathetic rather than stubbornly resistant. Turnout figures for recent elections back this up.

 

And constitution? What constitution? You can't bin something that has never been written.

 

Ah.... that's the beauty of the British Constitution my friend, it's both endlessly adaptable and quite indestructible.

 

As for the supposed 'apathy' of the British people towards constitution affairs, I see no actual evidence provided to support this assertion, and it is my firm belief that the monarchy maintains a substantial level of support among the British people. But even if I were to accept your view for arguments sake, any sense of constitutional apathy would surely be the happy result of centuries of political stability that is the child of the very same constitution you wish to do away with.

 

As I've said before, people blessed with a full measure of common sense tend not to attempt to mend things that aren't actually broken. Although this thread does tend to prove that common sense is an increasingly rare commodity.

Edited 20 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There are republican's in Parliament, so there are republican MP's from the main parties (granted I doubt whether there's many Torys that fall into that category).

 

Comparing what republican's want to the USA president( as some have done in this thread) is misleading and wrong. The US is a Federal Govt, and the president plays a political role in that. Nobody I've seen is advocating that to replace the Royals.It is more in line with the Irish, where The president is a mainly ceremonial office.The Taoiseach is the Prime Minister who runs the country.

 

The Royal supporters keep telling us the The Queen would never use her powers, is a ceremonial role, and is not political.They then use the counter arguement that we dont want a politican as head of state, and that it will be a minefield replacing her constitutionally.It can't be both, if she is just a figure head who would never weald any real power, then she should be easy to get rid of.

 

I believe that every British person is born equal, you clearly dont.

 

Although I disagreed with almost everything here, in specific reference to your concluding sentence you are indeed correct. Not only do I not believe that "every British person is born equal" it is also my belief that any grown adult who is still naive enough to really believe that such a state has/does/could exist in any Human society is manifestly in urgent need of psychiatric help.

 

Some of us are born to die as infants, others to endure into old age. Some come forth into the high summer of peace while others must freeze in the bleak midwinter of war. Many are destined for a lifetime of grinding poverty & hard labour, a fortunate few know fabulous wealth & idleness. This is the way of the world alas and if you really think that the Queen is somehow responsible for this or that messing about with the constitution is going to change anything then you and your shipmates are serving aboard a ship of fools.

[badgerx16]

There are republican's in Parliament, so there are republican MP's from the main parties (granted I doubt whether there's many Torys that fall into that category).

 

 

I remember the late Tony Banks crossing his fingers as he took the Oath of Allegiance.

 

( He also described Terry Dicks as 'living proof that a pig's bladder on a stick can get elected to Parliament' ).

[Verbal]

Although I disagreed with almost everything here, in specific reference to your concluding sentence you are indeed correct. Not only do I not believe that "every British person is born equal" it is also my belief that any grown adult who is still naive enough to really believe that such a state has/does/could exist in any Human society is manifestly in urgent need of psychiatric help.

 

Some of us are born to die as infants, others to endure into old age. Some come forth into the high summer of peace while others must freeze in the bleak midwinter of war. Many are destined for a lifetime of grinding poverty & hard labour, a fortunate few know fabulous wealth & idleness. This is the way of the world alas and if you really think that the Queen is somehow responsible for this or that messing about with the constitution is going to change anything then you and your shipmates are serving aboard a ship of fools.

 

Heaven forbid that I end up in Lord Duck's camp too often, but you really need to see his comments in terms of citizenship. You demean yourself, rather than him, by trying to take his comments about these kinds of equality (and, in the monarchy's case, inequality) as an argument that all people have equal health, wealth, etc.

 

Western democracies are founded on the equality of rights (and concomitant responsibilities). The idea that it's fine that these rights - to freedom of speech, assembly, to voteand to be represented, etc - be distributed unequally would be bizarre. In these terms, clearly (!), the monarchy is a useless anachronism, and worse.

 

And to argue, as you appear to do, that the usurping 'Windsors' are NOT at the pinnacle of a notoriously and archaically sclerotic class system that has stifled some of these rights (including freedom of speech) but also turned social mobility into a rarity rather than a characteristic, suggests to me that you're the one in need of a little help, although more in the form of basic history rather than psychiatry, I'm sure.

 

The constitutional points made on here seem to have flown right over your head, so perhaps Lord D's attempt to enlighten you is a waste of time.

[pap]

Although I disagreed with almost everything here, in specific reference to your concluding sentence you are indeed correct. Not only do I not believe that "every British person is born equal" it is also my belief that any grown adult who is still naive enough to really believe that such a state has/does/could exist in any Human society is manifestly in urgent need of psychiatric help.

 

Some of us are born to die as infants, others to endure into old age. Some come forth into the high summer of peace while others must freeze in the bleak midwinter of war. Many are destined for a lifetime of grinding poverty & hard labour, a fortunate few know fabulous wealth & idleness. This is the way of the world alas and if you really think that the Queen is somehow responsible for this or that messing about with the constitution is going to change anything then you and your shipmates are serving aboard a ship of fools.

 

I really enjoyed the style of this post, but can't really agree with the substance. You paint a picture of a world in stasis, when the reality is that the world is fundamentally unrecognisable from where we were a century ago. Even in the last two years, we've seen unprecedented events; the conflagration of revolutionary sentiment in Arab states through social networking tools. We in the present are always on the frontier, and life has changed immeasurably for all of us in my relatively short life time.

 

If there is one bet you'll never collect on, it's putting money on "nothing ever changing". Happens all the time, and you don't need psychiatric help to be able to acknowledge that.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I really enjoyed the style of this post, but can't really agree with the substance. You paint a picture of a world in stasis, when the reality is that the world is fundamentally unrecognisable from where we were a century ago. Even in the last two years, we've seen unprecedented events; the conflagration of revolutionary sentiment in Arab states through social networking tools. We in the present are always on the frontier, and life has changed immeasurably for all of us in my relatively short life time.

 

If there is one bet you'll never collect on, it's putting money on "nothing ever changing". Happens all the time, and you don't need psychiatric help to be able to acknowledge that.

 

 

Well I've spent a lifetime studying the history of this great nation - perhaps I'm too in love with my subject to be perfectly objective - but one word I'd never associate with the long and remarkable history of the British monarchy & constitution is 'static'.

 

You can read our history as one long dynamic struggle to contain the power of those who once wielded so much of it - be they of Royal blood or not. From long before Magna Carta, to long after Oliver Cromwell's doomed search for Leviathan, the strength of our constitution is not that it is persevered in some pickled state utterly incapable of change, but the polar opposite of that false depiction, my truth is that our constitution is a constantly evolving beast shaped by the remorseless flow of history.

 

We are today in many ways a very different nation to that of 1066, 1645, or 1900 even. With one very brief (unsuccessful) interlude back in the 17th century, the one constant throughout has been that the British people have consistently seen a need for monarchy as an inherent part of how they see themselves, their nation, and their place in the world.

 

I certainly don't claim to know the future, perhaps one day all the institutions we know so well today will be long gone, but I'll hazard a guess that no one reading this today will live long enough to see the end of the British Monarchy. As in all things' Tempus Omnia Revelat.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Heaven forbid that I end up in Lord Duck's camp too often, but you really need to see his comments in terms of citizenship. You demean yourself, rather than him, by trying to take his comments about these kinds of equality (and, in the monarchy's case, inequality) as an argument that all people have equal health, wealth, etc.

 

Western democracies are founded on the equality of rights (and concomitant responsibilities). The idea that it's fine that these rights - to freedom of speech, assembly, to voteand to be represented, etc - be distributed unequally would be bizarre. In these terms, clearly (!), the monarchy is a useless anachronism, and worse.

 

And to argue, as you appear to do, that the usurping 'Windsors' are NOT at the pinnacle of a notoriously and archaically sclerotic class system that has stifled some of these rights (including freedom of speech) but also turned social mobility into a rarity rather than a characteristic, suggests to me that you're the one in need of a little help, although more in the form of basic history rather than psychiatry, I'm sure.

 

The constitutional points made on here seem to have flown right over your head, so perhaps Lord D's attempt to enlighten you is a waste of time.

 

 

I more than happy to discusses any question of history with you (or anyone else on here) at any time of your choosing, but the prospect seems unpromising because if you really think that 'western democracy' was founded (in ancient Greece of course) on the principle of equal rights and responsibilities for all then you display a breathtaking ignorance of your subject. I suggest you do some research on the real history of Greek democracy before making a even bigger fool of yourself.

 

You see some unbridgeable contradiction between democracy and constitutional monarchy that I must reject and that the history of this nation (and many others by the way) proves to be utterly false. Democracy & constitutional monarchy can, and do, co-exist perfectly well together as longs as all the necessary safeguards are in place. Thus your entire premise is nothing more than a house of cards of a intellectual standard that I would expect to see in some adolescent debating society.

 

I fear it is beyond your understanding but please try to understand how very difficult it is to sensibly debate the constitution with people such as yourself who seemingly have little or no grasp on how it really evolved and what it actually is today. No one in their right mind still believes that the Royal Family were appointed by God Almighty to rule over us in perpetuity, to suggest so is silly. The sheer irony that you describe our constitutional monarchy as archaic while coming across as a outdated class warrior the like of which I though had died a unlamented death decades ago is no doubt lost on you. If that nasty chip on your shoulder gets any deeper then I fear for the arm.

 

Nevertheless, I will conclude by thanking you. Before reading your contributions to this thread I had been only 75% sure that we should retain the monarchy - but now thanks to you I'm perfectly sure of it. In that sense alone you do provide a useful service on here.

Edited 20 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Heaven forbid that I end up in Lord Duck's camp too often, but you really need to see his comments in terms of citizenship. You demean yourself, rather than him, by trying to take his comments about these kinds of equality (and, in the monarchy's case, inequality) as an argument that all people have equal health, wealth, etc.

 

Western democracies are founded on the equality of rights (and concomitant responsibilities). The idea that it's fine that these rights - to freedom of speech, assembly, to voteand to be represented, etc - be distributed unequally would be bizarre. In these terms, clearly (!), the monarchy is a useless anachronism, and worse.

 

And to argue, as you appear to do, that the usurping 'Windsors' are NOT at the pinnacle of a notoriously and archaically sclerotic class system that has stifled some of these rights (including freedom of speech) but also turned social mobility into a rarity rather than a characteristic, suggests to me that you're the one in need of a little help, although more in the form of basic history rather than psychiatry, I'm sure.

 

The constitutional points made on here seem to have flown right over your head, so perhaps Lord D's attempt to enlighten you is a waste of time.

 

You do amuse me Verbal, totally unable to understand that the Royal family is redundant in every way; it is just cosmetic to a political process. You remind me so much of that fellow on the train in Dr Zhivago.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You do amuse me Verbal, totally unable to understand that the Royal family is redundant in every way; it is just cosmetic to a political process. You remind me so much of that fellow on the train in Dr Zhivago.

 

Now, now, be fair Sergei.

 

The Royal Family have stifled all his 'social mobility' and prevented him from achieving the high status position his many talents undoubtedly deserve - probably lecturing in early Greek democracy to 10 year olds. Although the unending stream of verbiage Verbal graces the forum with might tend to suggest otherwise, the detestable Windsor's have even taken steps to curtail his freedom of speech apparently, I expect MI5 are monitoring his every move.

 

We can only hope Queen Elizabeth doesn't pay her fiver and start persecuting him further on here .......

Edited 20 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE