pap Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Only if I have a chance to be King through an election of my peers.
pap Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I am me, just me! You're getting a slap the next time I see you for that gleefully terse comment. (I shall attempt to administer said slap before your young son is big enough to protect you from me. So when he's about six, basically).
LGTL Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Which one gets me more time off work? I'm that one.
OVER THE HILL Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Republican, but the Queen would make a good president. As for the rest of the royals- too many hangers on living off the taxpayer.
Matthew Le God Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I am obviously a Royalist. But can you explain why you are?
buctootim Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Only if I have a chance to be King through an election of my peers. I'd vote for you Pap, you sure you want the job? All that corgi patting and visiting dull projects and having to smile a lot.
Saintandy666 Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I'm not particularly bothered either way. I believe there to be more important issues to reform first, and I like the Queen. Prince Charles, however, could put the whole institution at risk. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
dune Posted 6 February, 2012 Author Posted 6 February, 2012 But can you explain why you are? Because i'm a loyal subject.
Turkish Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I'm not particularly bothered either way. I believe there to be more important issues to reform first, and I like the Queen. Prince Charles, however, could put the whole institution at risk. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. Are you telling us you dont have an opinion on this one?
Colinjb Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Royalist personally. It would be fiercely counter productive to simply get rid of the monarchy. The economic benefits it brings through tourism and international relations more then outweigh any capital costs they require. I'm sure I read that a tax payer pays no more then a pound each per year to keep them going.... If anyone knows he exact figure I'ld be interested to hear it. The idea of a 'queen' is an anachronism but it is also a part o 'Britishness' to me. It's not something I can explain totally logically but I feel it would be a massive cultural own goal to get rid of them. Do they. red to be so austentatious though? I would say that the expectations of their consumer base (the royalist patriots, the tourists and the foreign dignitaries) should dictate that.
Dr Who? Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 You're getting a slap the next time I see you for that gleefully terse comment. (I shall attempt to administer said slap before your young son is big enough to protect you from me. So when he's about six, basically). Well, it is never going to be a balanced argument, with an opening post like that! I am not a royalist, but am a little meh, when it comes to the subject. You have just lost my vote, keep queen Liz!
Matthew Le God Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Because i'm a loyal subject. So you are happy to be the "subject" of an unelected woman who happened to be born into a dynasty?
JRM Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 So you are happy to be the "subject" of an unelected woman who happened to be born into a dynasty? they do not govern in the sense of making decisions that effect your every day lives - democracy is their for the government and look at the useless t0ssers who have been elected that way over the years.
Punk Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 So you are happy to be the "subject" of an unelected woman who happened to be born into a dynasty? This.
trousers Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Royalist. Reason? George Bush. No further questions your honour.
moonraker Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Tonights BBC 1 programme 'The Diamond Queen' was very useful to understand how our monarchy works. Andrew Marr presented and he made a very compelling case for our constitutional monarchy over a republican presidency not by promoting it but by presenting it in an informative way that in my opinion demonstrated that we would be a poorer nation culturally and influentially without it. There are 2 more episodes.
SuperMikey Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Republican. Amazed that we still count ourselves as a first-world nation considering we still live under a monarchy... The Royals do a lot of good work tbf to them, but it's more what they represent that I disagree with. Being born as a 'subject' to somebody who nobody voted for is akin to a dictatorship imo - even if they hold no real power now.
Matthew Le God Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 An integral part of being British You've lost me. Why is it integral to being British?
Matthew Le God Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Royalist. Reason? George Bush. No further questions your honour. I have a question.... Approximately 49% of American voters voted for Bush, and in theory most of the population could have stood against him. 0% voted for the Winsors to be our heads of state. So why is George Bush your reason for being a royalist? Yes, he was a crap President, but it is a fairer system than ours.
trousers Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 You've lost me. Why is it integral to being British? Because one human being has a different viewpoint to another human being? Just a hunch... ;-)
trousers Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 I have a question.... Approximately 49% of American voters voted for Bush, and in theory most of the population could have stood against him. 0% voted for the Winsors to be our heads of state. So why is George Bush your reason for being a royalist? Yes, he was a crap President, but it is a fairer system than ours. Human beings tend to vote for crap leaders (on average) No further questions....FFS!
Matthew Le God Posted 6 February, 2012 Posted 6 February, 2012 Because one human being has a different viewpoint to another human being? Just a hunch... ;-) I know he is entitled to say it, I am just wondering how he justifies such a statement.
Matthew Le God Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Human beings tend to vote for crap leaders (on average) So how does that make have a head of state nobody voted for and was by fluke of birth born into a dynasty a better option?
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 So how does that make have a head of state nobody voted for and was by fluke of birth born into a dynasty a better option? Conversely, why does it make them any worse? It's just a personal preference that one doesn't feel the need to justify.
buctootim Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 So how does that make have a head of state nobody voted for and was by fluke of birth born into a dynasty a better option? You could argue that British elections tend to produce dictatorship by the minority to the majority and that the Queen represents all sections of societies. (Im not sure I would argue that, but you could..... )
pap Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 If elected as your King, I shall wilfully abuse the power of crown immunity go on a bank robbing spree full of pomp and circumstance. We can use the proceeds to pay off everyone's mortgages.
Matthew Le God Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 (edited) Conversely, why does it make them any worse? Because pretty much any American citizen born in the US can at least in theory attempt to be head of state on personal merit rather than solely because of their family heritage. It is not possible for the best person for the head of state role in Britain to get the job as it is restricted to the first born of one family. 300 million people to choose from >>> one family (where the oldest child becomes head of state) Plus if a President is poor he can be kicked out after 4 years and can only stay for 8 years max. Royalty in this country are here until they decide otherwise or die. It really is quite simple. I'm not saying the American system is the best system to decide the head of state, just that it is better than Britain's. Edited 7 February, 2012 by Matthew Le God
Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Are you telling us you dont have an opinion on this one? Oh, am I disappointing you? I can easily tell you what I think would be the ideal system, in my humble opinion But as I said I believe there to be more pressing issues at hand!
Matthew Le God Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Queen represents all sections of societies. (Im not sure I would argue that, but you could..... ) How would someone go about arguing for that?
Saint in Paradise Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 If I knew I was going to get a letter asking me if I would acept a Knighthood then I would be a Royalist. However as I know I won't be getting that letter I want to be a Republican. .
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Republican. Amazed that we still count ourselves as a first-world nation considering we still live under a monarchy... The Royals do a lot of good work tbf to them, but it's more what they represent that I disagree with. Being born as a 'subject' to somebody who nobody voted for is akin to a dictatorship imo - even if they hold no real power now. So it's not even slightly like a dictatorship then is it.
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I respect the Queen and how she has given her life in service of the country. I don't really agree with the monarchy and all the money they receive, but whilst they keep bringing in more than they spend, I'm not that bothered.
Saint in Paradise Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Oh yes they do hold power, not openly these days perhaps but they have lots of toadies sucking to to "them" and they have power.These toadies will do what the royals "suggest". .
SuperMikey Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 So it's not even slightly like a dictatorship then is it. I guess I worded that wrong - it's more what they represent. They hold power, but they don't use it. If they did use power, they would be a lot less popular, i'm sure.
CB Saint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I'm a royalist. Whilst she is unelected, the queen brings a sense of duty to the position of the head of state which cannot ever be matched by a career politician who will be wish to become head of state for mainly selfish reasons. I strongly suspect the Charles and Williams respect and reverence of the posisiton will be no less as strong.
niceandfriendly Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Queen is a lizard. There's quite a lot of evidence out there to support this if only you'd bother to look.
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 So you are happy to be the "subject" of an unelected woman who happened to be born into a dynasty? He is fishing (as usual) MLG. Ignore him.
buctootim Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Queen is a lizard. There's quite a lot of evidence out there to support this if only you'd bother to look. I used to work with David Icke when he was a plain old sports reporter on BBC South, c1984. He would never wash his hair or come to the pub /cafe with the rest of the crew for lunch. We just thought he was bit aloof and anti social. He never mentioned the Queen or lizards afaik.
Seaford Saint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Is this a question about foreskins? Well the question was raised by our resident dickhead.
thefunkygibbons Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Royalist But tend to find that not worth arguing with people of the the opposite view as opinions tend to be entrenched on both sides
alpine_saint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Marginally Royalist. But wanting big, big root-and-branch changes to the whole institution when the Queen has passed away. And I will never be a loyal "subject" to Charles.
PaulSaint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Keep the monarchy But downscale it's wealth to the levels of the Danes, much more palatable to me.
moonraker Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Republican. Amazed that we still count ourselves as a first-world nation considering we still live under a monarchy... The Royals do a lot of good work tbf to them, but it's more what they represent that I disagree with. Being born as a 'subject' to somebody who nobody voted for is akin to a dictatorship imo - even if they hold no real power now. In the eyes of many foreign governments one of the reasons "we still count ourselves as a first-world nation "is because of the Royal Family not in spite of it. If we had an unheard of Head of State aka Germany / Ireland how would that help us on the modern international stage? The important thing in a democracy is that the executive is elected, (tick) that the judiciary is independent (tick) of the executive and law enforcement is independent of both (tick) the only thing we are missing is a fair voting system, so we can hardly be judged akin to a dictatorship, silly comparison, imho.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now