The haves and the "have-yachts"

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The moment you have to invent scenarios to justify the position of the Queen, your argument is over. I am sure that if it happened, there would be an Oscar-winning film off the back of it. Probably won't happen though. The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707.

 

All scenarios are by their very nature 'invented' to some extent my friend, and the very fact that our consitution has proven to be so very stable for such a extremly long time is the very point I've been labouring to make for quite a while now. But I'm glad you are at last coming around to my point of view.

 

But history shows we present a hostage to fortune every time we say something can never happen - never say never.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And for all the time you were composing this missive, one simple problem with it didn't occur to you? Dictators that overthrow democratic governments tend to be the MILITARY. For example: the Colonels in Greece, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, a succession of animalistic generals in Argentina, Brazil, etc, etc. Greece is interesting for your supposed counter-example. King Constantin - a relative of the Queen - tried for weeks to intervene. In the end, he not only failed, but was forced by the Colonels into a humiliating accession to all their demands, and the constitutional guarantees of democratic and other rights were simply abolished, with the King signing all the necessary paperwork.

 

So clearly, on your own assumption of the paramount need to protect the constitution and the rights therein, it's by far the best thing to do to boot out royalty and replace it with deeper democratic structures like a properly elected second chamber and an elected head of state.

 

And what's the garbage about 'comrade? If anyone, I'm an admirer of that dangerous Trotskyist Tom Paine. Try telling an American constitutionalist that Paine was simply an evil revolutionary and he'll take you for a tiny bit of a twit.

 

 

The depressing fact that you would try to aviod the issue rather than address it, should have been all too predictable I suppose - I'll bare this in mind for future referance citizen.

 

All course anyone with a basic grasp on history could tell you that that threat to democrachy is not only a military one, even if we accept as reality some semi-fictonal division between the twin worlds of military and political power.

 

I know you should never mention Nazi Germany in any internet discussion, but it's unaviodable here. I know that given the rudimentery level of your historican knowledge I should expect you are unaware of how Hitler came to power, but you can rest assured it was not a million miles away from the scenario I have outlined above. Of course the Weimar Republic was another one of these automaticly superior republican constitutions so many on here seem romanticly attached to as if they alone were the answer to mankinds problems ...... oh and the question of oaths became rather important in that matter as well for your infomation.

 

You should take a step back and try to understand that our constitution has been put together by people who were a hell of a lot cleverer than you are.

[Saintandy666]

The depressing fact that you would try to aviod the issue rather than address it, should have been all too predictable I suppose - I'll bare this in mind for future referance citizen.

 

All course anyone with a basic grasp on history could tell you that that threat to democrachy is not only a military one, even if we accept as reality some semi-fictonal division between the twin worlds of military and political power.

 

I know you should never mention Nazi Germany in any internet discussion, but it's unaviodable here. I know that given the rudimentery level of your historican knowledge I should expect you are unaware of how Hitler came to power, but you can rest assured it was not a million miles away from the scenario I have outlined above. Of course the Weimar Republic was another one of these automaticly superior republican constitutions so many on here seem romanticly attached to as if they alone were the answer to mankinds problems ...... oh and the question of oaths became rather important in that matter as well for your infomation.

 

You should take a step back and try to understand that our constitution has been put together by people who were a hell of a lot cleverer than you are.

 

I don't really think the Queen would be any more protection than Hindenburg... especially as the Queen isn't really allowed to say no to Parliament, whereas of course Hindenburg could technically...

 

The worrying thing if anything with our system vs. the US system is that it is entirely possible that an equivalent of the Enabling act could be passed because we have no safeguards of a proper constitution. In your example again, if the Queen didn't sign, they could just go back to parliament and abolish the Monarchy. Again, there are no protections in our system because Parliament has absolute authority.

 

The only way to get real protection is a proper rigid constitution and a proper Supreme Court to guard it.

[Verbal]

The depressing fact that you would try to aviod the issue rather than address it, should have been all too predictable I suppose - I'll bare this in mind for future referance citizen.

 

All course anyone with a basic grasp on history could tell you that that threat to democrachy is not only a military one, even if we accept as reality some semi-fictonal division between the twin worlds of military and political power.

 

I know you should never mention Nazi Germany in any internet discussion, but it's unaviodable here. I know that given the rudimentery level of your historican knowledge I should expect you are unaware of how Hitler came to power, but you can rest assured it was not a million miles away from the scenario I have outlined above. Of course the Weimar Republic was another one of these automaticly superior republican constitutions so many on here seem romanticly attached to as if they alone were the answer to mankinds problems ...... oh and the question of oaths became rather important in that matter as well for your infomation.

 

You should take a step back and try to understand that our constitution has been put together by people who were a hell of a lot cleverer than you are.

 

How very odd. You give a hypothetical scenario and I respond by showing historically how that's not been the case. And you simply ignore it - for the very good reason, no doubt, that Constantin vs the Greek junta did not end well for the royal, who was forced into the humiliating position of having to sign the decrees that undermined the Greek constitution.

 

I was trying not to bring Hitler into it for precisely the reason you mention. However, since you've wandered aimlessly into that territory, you should surely know that Hitler's rise to power, while predicated on undermining the Weimar constitution, required that he subjugate the will of the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht. Once he had succeeded in that, all else followed. (I know books bring people out in a rash on here, but try reading Ian Kershaw's superb and authoritative biography of Hitler for plentiful evidence of this) The constitution, whether republican or incorporating a useless monarch, would have made no difference. And Hitler is your worst enemy in other ways: as he planned the invasion of England, he planned to re-instate Edward VIII as a puppet monarch. So I suppose in that sense, monarchs have their uses - they can be herded around to legitimise even Nazism.

 

But once again, there's an obvious and self-defeating flaw in what passes for your 'logic': the assumption that Weimar = republican = weak against the onslaught of anti-liberal forces. By the same token, Constantin = monarchical = weak against the Greek junta's anti-liberal forces. If you were true to this weird way of thinking, you should be arguing for neither. The Comintern perhaps?

Edited 24 January, 2012 by Verbal

[pap]

All scenarios are by their very nature 'invented' to some extent my friend, and the very fact that our consitution has proven to be so very stable for such a extremly long time is the very point I've been labouring to make for quite a while now. But I'm glad you are at last coming around to my point of view.

 

But not all scenarios actually happen, do they?

 

While it might be mildly diverting to assess something that has actually happened to derive its sources of invention, it's hardly relevant to your argument.

 

Let's recap. You made up a story to illustrate how the Queen's powers might be useful, if such events occurred. Using that kind of logic, pretty much everything becomes justifiable, which is precisely why it's no kind of logic at all.

 

"Jimmy. Did you put the elephant-proof armour on the car? We're going to TESCO".

 

"Do I have to, Dad? There are never any elephants at TESCO".

 

"One day, there might be. This is why we spend so much money on elephant-proofing for the car"

 

But history shows we present a hostage to fortune every time we say something can never happen - never say never.

 

Where did I say that something can never happen? I said that the events you described "probably won't happen", based on the fact that it actually hasn't happened for over four hundred years.

[Jonnyboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4wSHVauPyw

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

How very odd. You give a hypothetical scenario and I respond by showing historically how that's not been the case. And you simply ignore it - for the very good reason, no doubt, that Constantin vs the Greek junta did not end well for the royal, who was forced into the humiliating position of having to sign the decrees that undermined the Greek constitution.

 

I was trying not to bring Hitler into it for precisely the reason you mention. However, since you've wandered aimlessly into that territory, you should surely know that Hitler's rise to power, while predicated on undermining the Weimar constitution, required that he subjugate the will of the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht. Once he had succeeded in that, all else followed. (I know books bring people out in a rash on here, but try reading Ian Kershaw's superb and authoritative biography of Hitler for plentiful evidence of this) The constitution, whether republican or incorporating a useless monarch, would have made no difference. And Hitler is your worst enemy in other ways: as he planned the invasion of England, he planned to re-instate Edward VIII as a puppet monarch. So I suppose in that sense, monarchs have their uses - they can be herded around to legitimise even Nazism.

 

Oh I believe you were the first person on here to mention Hitler.

 

But as we are on that subject, Hitler rose to power via a unholy combination of factors. Economic woes led to electoral success, add to that weak coalition politics, financial support from the German upper class - the so called Junkers - and other historical factors all playing a much more significant role in the rise of the Nazi Party than the military ever did prior to 1933. The Wehrmacht was little more than a marginal factor at that time with many of its senior officers regarding the Fuhrer as a ghastly little Gefreiter they could easy manipulate to their own ends - a misjudgment of epic proportions. Having read Kershaw I really would have expected you would have gained a better understanding of the crucial importance that the swearing of oaths can have to the military mind, and the grave constitutional implications of soldiers swearing absolute loyalty to any politician.

 

Now I'm happy to debate this unhappy subject (or outdated Communist ideology like the Comintern) if you like but if you want to set yourself up as a expert on Nazi Germany for instance then lauding Hitler's planning abilities seems a poor choice of starting point. To seriously claim that Hitler "planned to reinstate Edward VIII as puppet monarch" is to confuse speculation with fact, and any assumption that a grand master-plan to invade the UK existed before the fall of France is pure fantasy - read 'Hitlers Armada' by Geoff Hewitt. Adolf Hitler was most certainly not a strategic planner in the conventional sense, he was a opportunist with all the nerve required to push his luck to (and way beyond) its limits.

 

But to return to the matter in hand, it is abundantly clear that the real reason you failed to mention this most obvious of examples of how a non military based threat to the democratic process can exist, is not because of some overly fastidious show of respect towards Godwin's Law, but rather because it was inconvenient to your 'the army are the major threat to democracy' argument.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But not all scenarios actually happen, do they?

 

While it might be mildly diverting to assess something that has actually happened to derive its sources of invention, it's hardly relevant to your argument.

 

Let's recap. You made up a story to illustrate how the Queen's powers might be useful, if such events occurred. Using that kind of logic, pretty much everything becomes justifiable, which is precisely why it's no kind of logic at all.

 

 

Your objection to the perfectly reasonable employment of scenario as a debating tool to explore constitutional questions seems overstated if not bewildering. At the very beginning of the constitutional crisis scenario I presented I did actualy write in plain English for all to see that the situation I described was quote: "very unlikely" did I not !

 

The Queens role in the constitution and what just might happen one day in theory if her legal constitutional role every comes into conflict with her sacred coronation oath seems to me a perfectly valid matter to raise in a thread such as this.

 

As for what can and cannot happen over time, I'm quite old enough to remember a time when the fall of the Berlin Wall seemed hopelessly unlikely as well.

[Verbal]

Oh I believe you were the first person on here to mention Hitler.

 

But as we are on that subject, Hitler rose to power via a unholy combination of factors. Economic woes led to electoral success, add to that weak coalition politics, financial support from the German upper class - the so called Junkers - and other historical factors all playing a much more significant role in the rise of the Nazi Party than the military ever did prior to 1933. The Wehrmacht was little more than a marginal factor at that time with many of its senior officers regarding the Fuhrer as a ghastly little Gefreiter they could easy manipulate to their own ends - a misjudgment of epic proportions. Having read Kershaw I really would have expected you would have gained a better understanding of the crucial importance that the swearing of oaths can have to the military mind, and the grave constitutional implications of soldiers swearing absolute loyalty to any politician.

 

Now I'm happy to debate this unhappy subject (or outdated Communist ideology like the Comintern) if you like but if you want to set yourself up as a expert on Nazi Germany for instance then lauding Hitler's planning abilities seems a poor choice of starting point. To seriously claim that Hitler "planned to reinstate Edward VIII as puppet monarch" is to confuse speculation with fact, and any assumption that a grand master-plan to invade the UK existed before the fall of France is pure fantasy - read 'Hitlers Armada' by Geoff Hewitt. Adolf Hitler was most certainly not a strategic planner in the conventional sense, he was a opportunist with all the nerve required to push his luck to (and way beyond) its limits.

 

But to return to the matter in hand, it is abundantly clear that the real reason you failed to mention this most obvious of examples of how a non military based threat to the democratic process can exist, is not because of some overly fastidious show of respect towards Godwin's Law, but rather because it was inconvenient to your 'the army are the major threat to democracy' argument.

 

Good grief you're getting desperate. Everyone else I know who defends the monarchy in Britain is happy to leave it with some waffle about being good for tourists, and how foreigners love the 'Windsor'. You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that. But nor did monarchy remotely get in the way of the junta in Greece (funny how you keep avoiding the subject), and, worse than that, was browbeaten (no worse) into signing away Greeks' democratic rights and instituting a vicious reign of terror (of which I can only assumer you must have approved, since it was all signed off by one of your beloved monarchs).

 

You've googled yourself into a deep hole with this one and made yourself look a proper Charlie. The Comintern wasn't an ideology; Edward not only discussed reinstatement with Hitler himself but gave him -and was photographed doing so - a fulsome, enthusiastic, bolt-upright Nazi salute; and your reading, if that's the word, of Hitler's relationship with the Wehrmacht defies any historical account I've ever read. But worst of all, you've put yourself in the embarrassing position of appearing to argue that the monarchy - defanged, reduced to waving stiffly at 'subjects' prepared to give them the time of day - is some kind of bulwark against the forces of anti-democracy. That somehow, after centuries of undermining democratic advances, it is revealed as something it has always been: a shining beacon on the hill of modernity and reasonableness. What utter, utter nonsense.

 

Tom Paine had it about right: Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

Edited 24 January, 2012 by Verbal

[revolution saint]

Well Comrade Verbal let me paint you a picture of one possible (if very unlikely) scenario that neither you, nor I, might like very much.

 

In a few years time some national emergency arises & the government of the day decides that the General Election due to be held in the next few years would be a unwarranted distraction from the urgent business of addressing the issue. So the Prime Minister & his cabinet, using their large parliamentary majority, force a Bill through a reluctant House of Commons suspending the democratic process for a unspecified period. The House of Lords rejects this bill in its entirety, but after much toing & froing the government forces the legislation through employing the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949.

 

To become law the Queen needs to grant her 'Royal Assent' before this egregious piece of legislation can come into force. But Queen Elizabeth ever mindful of her sacred Coronation Oath to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs" decides to withhold her consent - and quite rightly so in my view.

In the midst of the ensuing grave constitutional crisis, mass civil disorder breaks out & the government calls upon the Army to intervene. In this crisis situation that unimportant & strictly 'ceremonial' oath you (& Sandy 666) dismiss so very glibly suddenly becomes a crucial issue as the Army staff must decide who's side they are on. I say the oath of allegiance to the Queen now grants the generals the possibility at least of siding with her & protecting the British people from the actions of a unconstitutional government. The Government is now left with no choice but to resign & call a new election.

 

We've been discussing fine points of constitutional practice for a while now, but behind all that nice theory lays a deeper truth that someone of your political leanings should understand I would have thought:

 

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung

 

In that at least the old despot was right for once.

 

To be honest a hypothetical situation, that even Hollywood would baulk at, isn't really a great defence of the monarchy - couldn't you have come up with a real example?

Edited 24 January, 2012 by revolution saint

[alpine_saint]

Oh I believe you were the first person on here to mention Hitler.

 

But as we are on that subject, Hitler rose to power via a unholy combination of factors. Economic woes led to electoral success, add to that weak coalition politics, financial support from the German upper class - the so called Junkers - and other historical factors all playing a much more significant role in the rise of the Nazi Party than the military ever did prior to 1933. The Wehrmacht was little more than a marginal factor at that time with many of its senior officers regarding the Fuhrer as a ghastly little Gefreiter they could easy manipulate to their own ends - a misjudgment of epic proportions. Having read Kershaw I really would have expected you would have gained a better understanding of the crucial importance that the swearing of oaths can have to the military mind, and the grave constitutional implications of soldiers swearing absolute loyalty to any politician.

 

Now I'm happy to debate this unhappy subject (or outdated Communist ideology like the Comintern) if you like but if you want to set yourself up as a expert on Nazi Germany for instance then lauding Hitler's planning abilities seems a poor choice of starting point. To seriously claim that Hitler "planned to reinstate Edward VIII as puppet monarch" is to confuse speculation with fact, and any assumption that a grand master-plan to invade the UK existed before the fall of France is pure fantasy - read 'Hitlers Armada' by Geoff Hewitt. Adolf Hitler was most certainly not a strategic planner in the conventional sense, he was a opportunist with all the nerve required to push his luck to (and way beyond) its limits.

 

But to return to the matter in hand, it is abundantly clear that the real reason you failed to mention this most obvious of examples of how a non military based threat to the democratic process can exist, is not because of some overly fastidious show of respect towards Godwin's Law, but rather because it was inconvenient to your 'the army are the major threat to democracy' argument.

 

Reckon Verbal has met his comeuppance here.

 

He's lost his air of superiority because hes found out that hes not the only one who reads and can refer to books. And his political dogma has made him lose all balance in his interpretations of what hes read and his posting..

[pap]

Your objection to the perfectly reasonable employment of scenario as a debating tool to explore constitutional questions seems overstated if not bewildering. At the very beginning of the constitutional crisis scenario I presented I did actualy write in plain English for all to see that the situation I described was quote: "very unlikely" did I not !

 

The problem with using a scenario as a debating tool is that it allows someone to build an exact scenario to fit their argument, however unlikely that may be.

 

You are creating an exceptional circumstance to argue for the continued existence of the monarchy.

 

The Queens role in the constitution and what just might happen one day in theory if her legal constitutional role every comes into conflict with her sacred coronation oath seems to me a perfectly valid matter to raise in a thread such as this.

 

You can't have it both ways. If it's very unlikely, it can't be perfectly valid.

 

As for what can and cannot happen over time, I'm quite old enough to remember a time when the fall of the Berlin Wall seemed hopelessly unlikely as well.

 

A century ago, there were probably millions of Russians who treated their monarchy as a permanent fixture. Five years later, it was gone.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Good grief you're getting desperate. Everyone else I know who defends the monarchy in Britain is happy to leave it with some waffle about being good for tourists, and how foreigners love the 'Windsor'. You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that. But nor did monarchy remotely get in the way of the junta in Greece (funny how you keep avoiding the subject), and, worse than that, was browbeaten (no worse) into signing away Greeks' democratic rights and instituting a vicious reign of terror (of which I can only assumer you must have approved, since it was all signed off by one of your beloved monarchs).

 

You've googled yourself into a deep hole with this one and made yourself look a proper Charlie. The Comintern wasn't an ideology; Edward not only discussed reinstatement with Hitler himself but gave him -and was photographed doing so - a fulsome, enthusiastic, bolt-upright Nazi salute; and your reading, if that's the word, of Hitler's relationship with the Wehrmacht defies any historical account I've ever read. But worst of all, you've put yourself in the embarrassing position of appearing to argue that the monarchy - defanged, reduced to waving stiffly at 'subjects' prepared to give them the time of day - is some kind of bulwark against the forces of anti-democracy. That somehow, after centuries of undermining democratic advances, it is revealed as something it has always been: a shining beacon on the hill of modernity and reasonableness. What utter, utter nonsense.

 

Tom Paine had it about right: Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

 

 

 

I do indeed think that our constitutional monarchy might just prove to be a useful safeguard against the forces of tyranny (in extreme circumstances) one day. Not only do I think this true, I'm also quite happy to repeat it. You plainly disagree .... oh well 'take it from whence it comes' they do say.

 

I think it is generaly accepted that Edward VIII was a fool, but if you really think you are alone in knowing of his infamous meeting with Hiter at the Berghof then so are you. However if you can produce so much as a single shred of primary scource evidence of the sinister 'plan' you see concocted between him and Adolf Hitler to retake the British Crown from his brother, then I'm sure the forum would be MOST interested to see it.

 

I await your proof with interest - if with precious little expectation of success.

 

As for your assertion that monarchy's are the primary scource of tryanny, this (in the modern world at least) is a ludicrously sweeping statement that I would expect to see laughed out of a primary school classroom, let along a discussion between what I had assumed were grown adults. Sadly it is however so very typical of your outdated dogma based view of the world.

But to make what may well be the grave error of taking anything you write seriously lets look at the evidence then. Did for instance, King Jaun Carlos I prove to be some type of roadblock on the long road to Spanish democracy after Franco's rule, or did he help enable it ? Indeed, since in the end of WWII just how many examples can you think of of constitutional monarchys staging a coup d'etat against their elected governments ? Perhaps you see the Windsors harbouring a secret ambition to sieze real power back from Parliment in your twisted version of reality.

 

But keep on posting comrad Verbal, because you are doing a far better job of undermining your own argument than I could ever do.

[alpine_saint]

I do indeed think that our constitutional monarchy might just prove to be a useful safeguard against the forces of tyranny (in extreme circumstances) one day. Not only do I think this true, I'm also quite happy to repeat it. You plainly disagree .... oh well 'take it from whence it comes' they do say.

 

I think it is generaly accepted that Edward VIII was a fool, but if you really think you are alone in knowing of his infamous meeting with Hiter at the Berghof then so are you. However if you can produce so much as a single shred of primary scource evidence of the sinister 'plan' you see concocted between him and Adolf Hitler to retake the British Crown from his brother, then I'm sure the forum would be MOST interested to see it.

 

I await your proof with interest - if with precious little expectation of success.

 

As for your assertion that monarchy's are the primary scource of tryanny, this (in the modern world at least) is a ludicrously sweeping statement that I would expect to see laughed out of a primary school classroom, let along a discussion between what I had assumed were grown adults. Sadly it is however so very typical of your outdated dogma based view of the world.

But to make what may well be the grave error of taking anything you write seriously lets look at the evidence then. Did for instance, King Jaun Carlos I prove to be some type of roadblock on the long road to Spanish democracy after Franco's rule, or did he help enable it ? Indeed, since in the end of WWII just how many examples can you think of of constitutional monarchys staging a coup d'etat against their elected governments ? Perhaps you see the Windsors harbouring a secret ambition to sieze real power back from Parliment in your twisted version of reality.

 

But keep on posting comrad Verbal, because you are doing a far better job of undermining your own argument than I could ever do.

 

[Verbal]

I do indeed think that our constitutional monarchy might just prove to be a useful safeguard against the forces of tyranny (in extreme circumstances) one day. Not only do I think this true, I'm also quite happy to repeat it. You plainly disagree .... oh well 'take it from whence it comes' they do say.

 

I think it is generaly accepted that Edward VIII was a fool, but if you really think you are alone in knowing of his infamous meeting with Hiter at the Berghof then so are you. However if you can produce so much as a single shred of primary scource evidence of the sinister 'plan' you see concocted between him and Adolf Hitler to retake the British Crown from his brother, then I'm sure the forum would be MOST interested to see it.

 

I await your proof with interest - if with precious little expectation of success.

 

As for your assertion that monarchy's are the primary scource of tryanny, this (in the modern world at least) is a ludicrously sweeping statement that I would expect to see laughed out of a primary school classroom, let along a discussion between what I had assumed were grown adults. Sadly it is however so very typical of your outdated dogma based view of the world.

But to make what may well be the grave error of taking anything you write seriously lets look at the evidence then. Did for instance, King Jaun Carlos I prove to be some type of roadblock on the long road to Spanish democracy after Franco's rule, or did he help enable it ? Indeed, since in the end of WWII just how many examples can you think of of constitutional monarchys staging a coup d'etat against their elected governments ? Perhaps you see the Windsors harbouring a secret ambition to sieze real power back from Parliment in your twisted version of reality.

 

But keep on posting comrad Verbal, because you are doing a far better job of undermining your own argument than I could ever do.

 

Thanks for this, comrade. I can't help noticing that the gaps between your replies are getting ever longer as you furiously try to google some sort acceptable, common-sense veneer on your quite funny argument. I notice you STILL avoid my King Constantine point. I wonder why? I'm sure it's nothing to do with the fact that it makes your proposition that monarchy is a bulwark against tyranny ludicrous. And aside from the fact that pap has already rather elegantly expressed the absurdity of that particular brainwave of yours with his elephant armour analogy, you should consider this. Let's assume Edward hadn't fallen for Wallis Simpson, and had remained on the throne in the lead-up to and during the Second World War. What a spectacle it would have been to have had a Nazi-saluting, Adolf-admiring King on the throne at a time when the very independence and freedoms of the country were at stake.

 

Re: your suggestion that I am trying to argue that monarchy TODAY is a source of tyranny - don't be so silly! Read what I actually said and take those

Alpine purple rage spectacles off. These were the words I used: You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that.

 

And as for Hitler's dealings with Edward, are US naval intelligence reports good enough for you? They recount the details, lifted from a confidential report produced at a conference senior German officials in 1941. This states: When he [Edward] was in Germany he had contact with Hitler and he is the only person with whom Hitler would confer in any negotiations of peace or armistice when it becomes necessary.

 

"Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England."

 

Fraternal greetings from the Socialist Republic of Fulham

Edited 26 January, 2012 by Verbal

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Thanks for this, comrade. I can't help noticing that the gaps between your replies are getting ever longer as you furiously try to google some sort acceptable, common-sense veneer on your quite funny argument. I notice you STILL avoid my King Constantine point. I wonder why? I'm sure it's nothing to do with the fact that it makes your proposition that monarchy is a bulwark against tyranny ludicrous. And aside from the fact that pap has already rather elegantly expressed the absurdity of that particular brainwave of yours with his elephant armour analogy, you should consider this. Let's assume Edward hadn't fallen for Wallis Simpson, and had remained on the throne in the lead-up to and during the Second World War. What a spectacle it would have been to have had a Nazi-saluting, Adolf-admiring King on the throne at a time when the very independence and freedoms of the country were at stake.

 

Re: your suggestion that I am trying to argue that monarchy TODAY is a source of tyranny - don't be so silly! Read what I actually said and take those

Alpine purple rage spectacles off. These were the words I used: You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that.

 

And as for Hitler's dealings with Edward, are US naval intelligence reports good enough for you? They recount the details, lifted from a confidential report produced at a conference senior German officials in 1941. This states: When he [Edward] was in Germany he had contact with Hitler and he is the only person with whom Hitler would confer in any negotiations of peace or armistice when it becomes necessary.

 

"Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England."

 

Fraternal greetings from the Socialist Republic of Fulham

 

So you watched that Channel 4 documentary Verbal. Smearing the Royal Family using hearsay and gossip from the 1930's to support your prejudices against the British establishment. You clearly seem to ignore the fact that even in those days the Royals had to be popular and the British people did not warm to Nazi's. Try and look at the bigger picture without succombing to your petty bigotry and put together an argument relevant to the role of today's monarchy.

[Verbal]

So you watched that Channel 4 documentary Verbal. Smearing the Royal Family using hearsay and gossip from the 1930's to support your prejudices against the British establishment. You clearly seem to ignore the fact that even in those days the Royals had to be popular and the British people did not warm to Nazi's. Try and look at the bigger picture without succombing to your petty bigotry and put together an argument relevant to the role of today's monarchy.

 

No, I didn't see it, but thanks for the tip Sergei! Did they include the infamous cable from the German ambassador in Lisbon, who, in July 1940, which read: “The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing would make England ready for peace.”

 

Nice of the Queen's uncle to recommend the bombing of 'his' own people, don't you think? No wonder he was banished from public view by the British Foreign Office.

Edited 26 January, 2012 by Verbal

[alpine_saint]

So you watched that Channel 4 documentary Verbal. Smearing the Royal Family using hearsay and gossip from the 1930's to support your prejudices against the British establishment. You clearly seem to ignore the fact that even in those days the Royals had to be popular and the British people did not warm to Nazi's. Try and look at the bigger picture without succombing to your petty bigotry and put together an argument relevant to the role of today's monarchy.

 

Christ that last post of Verbals was a load of crap. He's slipping...

 

If the monarchy "TODAY, not historically" isnt a source of tyranny, why bother making the point to support the argument removing it for the present and the future ???

[Verbal]

One other thing, Sergei, if it makes you feel better: I probably wouldn't so be opposed to the monarchy if it didn't consist of a cretinous, inbred clan from Saxony who couldn't keep their thieving hands off public and common land, and who then try to lord it over us with all the faux pomp and circumstance of a Colonel Blimp. If 'our' royals were more on the model of those in Scandinavia and Holland, fine.

 

Still, as I say, as soon as QE2 is gone, and the mother-fixators have lost their object of blind adoration, the useless remnants of the monarchy will be swept away, as they almost were during the equally ludicrous George IV.

 

Can't say fairer than that. Agree?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

No, I didn't see it, but thanks for the tip Sergei! Did they include the infamous cable from the German ambassador in Lisbon, who, in July 1940, which read: “The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing would make England ready for peace.”

 

Nice of the Queen's uncle to recommend the bombing of 'his' own people, don't you think? No wonder he was banished from public view by the British Foreign Office.

 

Pleased you made it to the 40's but please try harder and get to today.

[buctootim]

So to summarise. Argument against the Monarchy - they have German ancestry and in 1940 the Head of State's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser. Whereas if we had an elected head of state they would never be related to anyone who was foreign or did something stupid. After all democracy has given us universally popular illegal invasions of foreign countries and minority coalition government.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thanks for this, comrade. I can't help noticing that the gaps between your replies are getting ever longer as you furiously try to google some sort acceptable, common-sense veneer on your quite funny argument. I notice you STILL avoid my King Constantine point. I wonder why? I'm sure it's nothing to do with the fact that it makes your proposition that monarchy is a bulwark against tyranny ludicrous. And aside from the fact that pap has already rather elegantly expressed the absurdity of that particular brainwave of yours with his elephant armour analogy, you should consider this. Let's assume Edward hadn't fallen for Wallis Simpson, and had remained on the throne in the lead-up to and during the Second World War. What a spectacle it would have been to have had a Nazi-saluting, Adolf-admiring King on the throne at a time when the very independence and freedoms of the country were at stake.

 

Re: your suggestion that I am trying to argue that monarchy TODAY is a source of tyranny - don't be so silly! Read what I actually said and take those

Alpine purple rage spectacles off. These were the words I used: You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that.

 

 

 

And as for Hitler's dealings with Edward, are US naval intelligence reports good enough for you? They recount the details, lifted from a confidential report produced at a conference senior German officials in 1941. This states: When he [Edward] was in Germany he had contact with Hitler and he is the only person with whom Hitler would confer in any negotiations of peace or armistice when it becomes necessary.

 

"Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England."

 

Fraternal greetings from the Socialist Republic of Fulham

 

Thanks so very much comradski verbal.

 

The forum will note that despite much Googeling the Rt Hon' member for Pyongyang South has produced no primary scource evidence to support his slander against Edward VIII. Of course dead men find it difficult to defend themselves.

 

In the light of this failure a honourable man would withdraw the claim - needless the say I not expecting any such display of integrity here.

[Verbal]

Thanks so very much comradski verbal.

 

The forum will note that despite much Googeling the Rt Hon' member for Pyongyang South has produced no primary scource evidence to support his slander against Edward VIII. Of course dead men find it difficult to defend themselves.

 

In the light of this failure a honourable man would withdraw the claim - needless the say I not expecting any such display of integrity here.

 

Ahem, Constantine, comrade, Constantine! Never mind; you clearly can't face it. And so sorry that US intelligence, based on official German reports, and the FBI are not credible sources for you - or perhaps the elephant armour is obscuring your vision.

 

Let's agree on this. Return the Duchys to common ownshership, chuck out the present lot - you're surely not so childish as to argue for the divine principles of accession are you...or to argue that they're anything but a useless breed? And let's have a version of the bicycle monarchy in Holland. Give them the average income of a British worker, an expenses allowance - and be done with that. We could also include some compulsory donor insemination to ensure a modicum of intelligence.

 

There. A plan.

Edited 26 January, 2012 by Verbal

[solentstars]

So to summarise. Argument against the Monarchy - they have German ancestry and in 1940 the Head of State's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser. Whereas if we had an elected head of state they would never be related to anyone who was foreign or did something stupid. After all democracy has given us universally popular illegal invasions of foreign countries and minority coalition government.

yes lets do away with democracy its not good for us and have a monarchy which then start the crusades all over again and we could invade ireland to get rid of the catholic faith at the same time:) so our king can get a divorce:)and the church would be happy so they can abuse young kiddies without no comeback.

[buctootim]

yes lets do away with democracy its not good for us and have a monarchy which then start the crusades all over again and we could invade ireland to get rid of the catholic faith at the same time:) so our king can get a divorce:)and the church would be happy so they can abuse young kiddies without no comeback.

 

I wasnt quite suggesting that I know the principle of a constitutional monarchy is indefensible but in practice, as a largely ceremonial thing it works okay. Yes the principle of an elected head of state seems better, in practice, really?

Edited 26 January, 2012 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ahem, Constantine, comrade, Constantine! Never mind; you clearly can't face it. And so sorry that US intelligence, based on official German reports, and the FBI are not credible sources for you - or perhaps the elephant armour is obscuring your vision.

 

Let's agree on this. Return the Duchys to common ownshership, chuck out the present lot - you're surely not so childish as to argue for the divine principles of accession are you...or to argue that they're anything but a useless breed? And let's have a version of the bicycle monarchy in Holland. Give them the average income of a British worker, an expenses allowance - and be done with that. We could also include some compulsory donor insemination to ensure a modicum of intelligence.

 

There. A plan.

 

Me again, and I hope this reply is prompt enough for you so that you haven't missed me so much this time.

 

Obviously the defiencies of your North Korean education has left you unaware of what does, and does not, constitute primary scource evidence. Although educating you seems a full time job that I'd be hard pressed to fullfil in all honesty, a primary scource would be written (or otherwise recorded) evidence of the very serious conspiracy or plan you alledge, not some hearsay -he said/she said- 'evidence' provided years later from a secondary scource.

 

Something on official headed Furher Hauptquartier notepaper with a Nazi eagle on it would do just fine, or even a signed confession perhaps from the erstwhile Edward VIII. Although I should add that I am always interested in the opinion of that fine body of men that is the US Navy.

 

Thinking about North Korea, that vile regime (not any modern constitutional monarchy) is by far the closest thing we have today to the medieval kingdoms you despise so much. Given your leftish political views yet another irony that has probably escaped you.

[pap]

Me again, and I hope this reply is prompt enough for you so that you haven't missed me so much this time.

 

Obviously the defiencies of your North Korean education has left you unaware of what does, and does not, constitute primary scource evidence. Although educating you seems a full time job that I'd be hard pressed to fullfil in all honesty, a primary scource would be written (or otherwise recorded) evidence of the very serious conspiracy or plan you alledge, not some hearsay -he said/she said- 'evidence' provided years later from a secondary scource.

 

Something on official headed Furher Hauptquartier notepaper with a Nazi eagle on it would do just fine, or even a signed confession perhaps from the erstwhile Edward VIII. Although I should add that I am always interested in the opinion of that fine body of men that is the US Navy.

 

Thinking about North Korea, that vile regime (not any modern constitutional monarchy) is by far the closest thing we have today to the medieval kingdoms you despise so much. Given your leftish political views yet another irony that has probably escaped you.

 

Have you any idea how far you've strolled off the reservation here, sir?

[Verbal]

Me again, and I hope this reply is prompt enough for you so that you haven't missed me so much this time.

 

Obviously the defiencies of your North Korean education has left you unaware of what does, and does not, constitute primary scource evidence. Although educating you seems a full time job that I'd be hard pressed to fullfil in all honesty, a primary scource would be written (or otherwise recorded) evidence of the very serious conspiracy or plan you alledge, not some hearsay -he said/she said- 'evidence' provided years later from a secondary scource.

 

Something on official headed Furher Hauptquartier notepaper with a Nazi eagle on it would do just fine, or even a signed confession perhaps from the erstwhile Edward VIII. Although I should add that I am always interested in the opinion of that fine body of men that is the US Navy.

 

Thinking about North Korea, that vile regime (not any modern constitutional monarchy) is by far the closest thing we have today to the medieval kingdoms you despise so much. Given your leftish political views yet another irony that has probably escaped you.

 

Constantine, Constantine, Constantine!

 

Yours ever,

 

Dim Sum Il

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Have you any idea how far you've strolled off the reservation here, sir?

 

This from a man who gets his knickers in right old a twist just because someone dared to employed a scenario in debate without his written permision !

 

Oh please.

[solentstars]

I wasnt quite suggesting that I know the principle of a constitutional monarchy is indefensible but in practice, as a largely ceremonial thing it works okay. Yes the principle of an elected head of state seems better, in practice, really?

agree i would like a elected head and second chamber but at the moment the people are happy with the queen so has a democrat i accept the will of the people and is good for the tourists to see on their days out .

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I see the prospect of a splendid new Royal Yacht has arisen again - to much all party support in Parliament:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9410585/David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-show-rare-unity-over-UK-flagship.html

 

I also take it that with no public money, or even Royal Navy crew involved, even the most chippy of Republicans and Communists on here won't object all that much .... will they

[bridge too far]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/20/royal-yacht-patriotic-distraction

[um pahars]

I see the prospect of a splendid new Royal Yacht has arisen again - to much all party support in Parliament:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9410585/David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-show-rare-unity-over-UK-flagship.html

 

I also take it that with no public money, or even Royal Navy crew involved, even the most chippy of Republicans and Communists on here won't object all that much .... will they

 

G4S have been awarded the contract to crew and protect the he ship.

[saintfully]

I see the prospect of a splendid new Royal Yacht has arisen again - to much all party support in Parliament:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9410585/David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-show-rare-unity-over-UK-flagship.html

 

I also take it that with no public money, or even Royal Navy crew involved, even the most chippy of Republicans and Communists on here won't object all that much .... will they

 

If it winds-up the middle-brow monarchist no-hopers then I'll object with gusto - simply on the basis that the £80 million could be spent on better things. For example, permanent 'sites with rights' for romany people and the irish travelling community.

[Thedelldays]

If it winds-up the middle-brow monarchist no-hopers then I'll object with gusto - simply on the basis that the £80 million could be spent on better things. For example, permanent 'sites with rights' for romany people and the irish travelling community.

right...spend money on gypos, or something all parties agree will help promote the country

 

 

yeah, ok

[Saint_clark]

If it winds-up the middle-brow monarchist no-hopers then I'll object with gusto - simply on the basis that the £80 million could be spent on better things. For example, permanent 'sites with rights' for romany people and the irish travelling community.

 

Or you could stick to making no exceptions and make them follow the law?

[Verbal]

G4S have been awarded the contract to crew and protect the he ship.

 

All under the watchful guidance of newly appointed captain Francesco Schettino.

[saintfully]

Or you could stick to making no exceptions and make them follow the law?

 

Just being provocative - I was curious to see who'd bite to be honest.

 

Everyday I see the usual wind-up merchants from the right spout preposterous ******, so wanted to see what would happen from the other direction. Turns out that you can write anything on the internet and it will be taken seriously. An interesting experiment - I now undestand a little what someone with no life/job/personality gets out of spending hours/weeks winding up strangers on the internet.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just being provocative - I was curious to see who'd bite to be honest.

 

Everyday I see the usual wind-up merchants from the right spout preposterous ******, so wanted to see what would happen from the other direction. Turns out that you can write anything on the internet and it will be taken seriously. An interesting experiment - I now undestand a little what someone with no life/job/personality gets out of spending hours/weeks winding up strangers on the internet.

 

Don't worry my friend, we didn't take you seriously for one moment.

[Verbal]

Don't put your wallet away, British taxpayer.

 

In addition to bailing out the banks, your money will now pay for a swish new yacht for HRH Queen Elizabeth II to celebrate the upcoming diamond jubilee.

 

The yacht, pencilled in for £60M, will of course come as some comfort to the 2-3K of public sector workers that it would have paid for. Jobless they may be, but the Queen will have a new mode of transport, and that's all that matters.

 

Guardian article.

 

In the six months since this thread started, the estimated cost of this piece of idiocy has increased by a staggering £20m.

 

The age of austerity indeed.

[badgerx16]

I see the prospect of a splendid new Royal Yacht has arisen again - to much all party support in Parliament:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9410585/David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-show-rare-unity-over-UK-flagship.html

 

I also take it that with no public money, or even Royal Navy crew involved, even the most chippy of Republicans and Communists on here won't object all that much .... will they

 

The 'Big Society' is now taking to the water.

 

Is it significant that it's going to be a sailing ship - powered by wind and bluster. And on a technical note, and there may well be somebody out there in TSF land qualified to answer, what use is a heli-pad on a sailing ship ? How often, at sea, would it be upright ? ( Not to mention the 4 masts and associated rigging. ).

 

( And before anybody points it out, I know it will have an auxiliary engine ).

Edited 22 July, 2012 by badgerx16

[saintfully]

Don't worry my friend, we didn't take you seriously for one moment.

 

Thats a relief, I didn't want to upset anyone. Least of all a man who has over 3000 posts on an internet message board - surely someone to be respected!

[Verbal]

I see the prospect of a splendid new Royal Yacht has arisen again - to much all party support in Parliament:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9410585/David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-show-rare-unity-over-UK-flagship.html

 

I also take it that with no public money, or even Royal Navy crew involved, even the most chippy of Republicans and Communists on here won't object all that much .... will they

 

So where IS the money coming from then? That article is ludicrously short on detail - or reassurance that it won't fail and fall back on the mug taxpayers to pick up the tab.

[bridge too far]

So where IS the money coming from then? That article is ludicrously short on detail - or reassurance that it won't fail and fall back on the mug taxpayers to pick up the tab.

 

S'OK! These public spirited souls have got a few pennies to spare

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

[Verbal]

S'OK! These public spirited souls have got a few pennies to spare

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

 

Yeah I saw that. Appalling doesn't even begin to describe it. I imagine our resident auto-didact is banking on some of those cretins to cough up.

[bridge too far]

Yeah I saw that. Appalling doesn't even begin to describe it. I imagine our resident auto-didact is banking on some of those cretins to cough up.

 

You mean Gideon Part-timer?

[badgerx16]

So where IS the money coming from then? That article is ludicrously short on detail - or reassurance that it won't fail and fall back on the mug taxpayers to pick up the tab.

 

Lord Ashcroft is apparently 'donating' £5M of the tax he has avoided paying.

[Verbal]

Lord Ashcroft is apparently 'donating' £5M of the tax he has avoided paying.

 

Really? They'll have to name it HMS Scumbag in his honour then. If he and his ilk are going to finance this, it'll be nothing more than a monument to way the super-rich **** on British taxpayers.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thats a relief, I didn't want to upset anyone. Least of all a man who has over 3000 posts on an internet message board - surely someone to be respected!

 

You regard yourself as superior to those who choose to converse with others via the net, employing a internet forum to convey this message.

 

How odd.

[saintfully]

You regard yourself as superior to those who choose to converse with others via the net, employing a internet forum to convey this message.

 

How odd.

 

Not really, I haven't got your address.