badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Why is it that this forum finds so many ways to rake up the same old set of arguments ? We had exactly the same discussion about 2 weeks ago. Staunchly Republican, but will tolerate Lizzie as she is keeping Chuck off the throne.
Wurzel 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? Not how I see it at all I see the monarch as the human representation of our country. The royal family represent continuity. What do Americans, for example, have that represents their country? And outline on a map? A flag? Not the president, he is just a politically motivated individual who comes and goes, (another answer to the same question would be why would I be happy to be a subject of -or subject to - a president I voted against?) . Of course the monarch isn't immortal but there are set rules on who is next so the continuity is there. I see myself as a subject of my country, which is merely represented by The Monarch of the time. If I was a foreigner and the Queen paid a state visit I would feel that that visit was on behalf of our country. If a prime minister and/or president visited I would feel that it was the leader of a political party . The Queen has kept herself above politics although I am sure there has been a few occasions when her wishes have quietly been made known. Just think if we were a Republic we could have someone like Richard Branson or Simon Cowell or Rupert Murdoch as our head of state (not sure if the latter qualifies but you get my drift). Or even the latest pop sensation as it would probably be decided by phone/text vote. Bang goes a millennium and more of tradition in one sweep. Would that be how you see England, ooops the UK?. As for Elizabeth the person think she has done an excellent job in what, despite the luxuries, must be one of the hardest jobs in the world to cope with. I thought it was telling in last nights doc that , whilst several other nations have Queens, all the Americans interviewed referred to her as THE Queen.
derry Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I'd take the Queen any day over the self serving career politicians that have no interest in the population's views. Jesus H Christ, Imagine Tony Blair as President, No Thankyou.
Orange Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Not how I see it at all I see the monarch as the human representation of our country. The royal family represent continuity. What do Americans, for example, have that represents their country? And outline on a map? A flag? Not the president, he is just a politically motivated individual who comes and goes, (another answer to the same question would be why would I be happy to be a subject of -or subject to - a president I voted against?) . Of course the monarch isn't immortal but there are set rules on who is next so the continuity is there. I see myself as a subject of my country, which is merely represented by The Monarch of the time. If I was a foreigner and the Queen paid a state visit I would feel that that visit was on behalf of our country. If a prime minister and/or president visited I would feel that it was the leader of a political party . The Queen has kept herself above politics although I am sure there has been a few occasions when her wishes have quietly been made known. Just think if we were a Republic we could have someone like Richard Branson or Simon Cowell or Rupert Murdoch as our head of state (not sure if the latter qualifies but you get my drift). Or even the latest pop sensation as it would probably be decided by phone/text vote. Bang goes a millennium and more of tradition in one sweep. Would that be how you see England, ooops the UK?. As for Elizabeth the person think she has done an excellent job in what, despite the luxuries, must be one of the hardest jobs in the world to cope with. I thought it was telling in last nights doc that , whilst several other nations have Queens, all the Americans interviewed referred to her as THE Queen. This. And the fact i feel a natural loyalty to the Queen.
iansums Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Not how I see it at all I see the monarch as the human representation of our country. The royal family represent continuity. What do Americans, for example, have that represents their country? And outline on a map? A flag? Not the president, he is just a politically motivated individual who comes and goes, (another answer to the same question would be why would I be happy to be a subject of -or subject to - a president I voted against?) . Of course the monarch isn't immortal but there are set rules on who is next so the continuity is there. I see myself as a subject of my country, which is merely represented by The Monarch of the time. If I was a foreigner and the Queen paid a state visit I would feel that that visit was on behalf of our country. If a prime minister and/or president visited I would feel that it was the leader of a political party . The Queen has kept herself above politics although I am sure there has been a few occasions when her wishes have quietly been made known. Just think if we were a Republic we could have someone like Richard Branson or Simon Cowell or Rupert Murdoch as our head of state (not sure if the latter qualifies but you get my drift). Or even the latest pop sensation as it would probably be decided by phone/text vote. Bang goes a millennium and more of tradition in one sweep. Would that be how you see England, ooops the UK?. As for Elizabeth the person think she has done an excellent job in what, despite the luxuries, must be one of the hardest jobs in the world to cope with. I thought it was telling in last nights doc that , whilst several other nations have Queens, all the Americans interviewed referred to her as THE Queen. Excellent post, sums up my thoughts entirely. The thing is what's the alternative? A Boris Johnson figure as President, no thanks. The monarchy is part of our culture, its what we are as a nation. Who cares if it is a hereditary (sp), unelected position, they have no real power anyway. The Queen is simply a figurehead for the nation, an advertisment if you like. It would be good though if we could bypass Charles and go straight to William as the next King.
ecuk268 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Despite my republican leanings, I think that Liz has done a reasonable job. However, she can't go on for ever so we're faced with the affable but slightly weird Charles. if we have to have a monarch, I see no reason why the whole thing can't be scaled down a bit like the European monarchies. OK, they need a big house with an enormous garden in the centre of London. But they've also an enormous castle set in a huge park in Berkshire, another estate in Norfolk and yet another in Scotland. Do they really need all that?
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Royalist. Would be embarrassed to live in a time that dispensed with 1000 years of history. Take a walk round Westminster Abbey sometime.
Verbal Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Royalist. Would be embarrassed to live in a time that dispensed with 1000 years of history. Take a walk round Westminster Abbey sometime. It's not 'either/or'. If we abolished the monarchy tomorrow - at least 200 years too late, in my view - the Abbey and its corpses would not disappear with it. Of course, by far the LEAST interesting people laid out there are royals.
iansums Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 What would the benefits of abolishing the monarchy be? Serious question for those that are advocating this, list the benefits.
docker-p Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Republican. Royal families belong to the 19C. (BTW is there any evidence to back up the claim that royality brings in ££££ from tourism? France doesn't have a problem)
Verbal Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 What would the benefits of abolishing the monarchy be? Serious question for those that are advocating this, list the benefits. The biggest one is reversing the expropriation of common lands (including large swathes of the British coastline), carried out mostly in the 19th century to give George IV, who'd bankrupted the monarchy, some means of income support (the sponging oaf that he was). Consequently, Liz 2 and Jug Ears (through the Duchys) are by far the largest landowners in Britain. none of it was theirs to begin with. Putting the privately held, rarely ever viewed royal art collections - paid for by the proceeds from the 19th Century land grab - on public view and in public ownership (The National Gallery, British Museum, etc) Throwing open the palaces and houses of the royals to full public view (thus generating far more in tourist £s than the secretive monarchy. Setting aside the grim association of monarchy with the military dictatorship that was the British Empire. Paving the way for a modernising (and widening) of democracy, with a written constitution that includes a genuinely elected bicameral parliamentary system, and a more effective, more accountable separation of powers. Etc, etc.
dronskisaint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Republican, unsurprisingly I retain the ability to reason and I believe in democracy.
hypochondriac Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Republican, unsurprisingly I retain the ability to reason and I believe in democracy. Are you implying that royalists are unable to do so?
Verbal Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Are you implying that royalists are unable to do so? Really committed royalists - as opposed to the 'it's-okay-for-tourists' brigade - tend to be swivel-eyed right-wingers, and on the basis of recent peer-reviewed psychological research suggesting a close link between poor cognitive function and right-wing views, I'd say yes.
moonraker Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Despite my republican leanings, I think that Liz has done a reasonable job. However, she can't go on for ever so we're faced with the affable but slightly weird Charles. if we have to have a monarch, I see no reason why the whole thing can't be scaled down a bit like the European monarchies. OK, they need a big house with an enormous garden in the centre of London. But they've also an enormous castle set in a huge park in Berkshire, another estate in Norfolk and yet another in Scotland. Do they really need all that? The Sandringham and Balmoral are the private property of the Queen whilst Buck House and Windsor are Crown Estae property.
solentstars Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 a Republicans and democrat but i like the present queen but hope when she gos we can despense with this soap opera and become a modern state
moonraker Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The biggest one is reversing the expropriation of common lands (including large swathes of the British coastline), carried out mostly in the 19th century to give George IV, who'd bankrupted the monarchy, some means of income support (the sponging oaf that he was). Consequently, Liz 2 and Jug Ears (through the Duchys) are by far the largest landowners in Britain. none of it was theirs to begin with. Putting the privately held, rarely ever viewed royal art collections - paid for by the proceeds from the 19th Century land grab - on public view and in public ownership (The National Gallery, British Museum, etc) Throwing open the palaces and houses of the royals to full public view (thus generating far more in tourist £s than the secretive monarchy. Setting aside the grim association of monarchy with the military dictatorship that was the British Empire. Paving the way for a modernising (and widening) of democracy, with a written constitution that includes a genuinely elected bicameral parliamentary system, and a more effective, more accountable separation of powers. Etc, etc. You will be very disappointed if you believe all that would follow the abolition of the monarchy. Land held by the Crown Estate on behalf of members of the royal family would simply become Government Estate and liable to be flogged of at the first opportunity by a struggling government to any who have the where with all to purchase it, not a lot of chance of it reverting to us serfs to graze our stock on, or wander freely over! The majority of the Royal Collections are the private property of the Queen and other members pf the Royal Family so unless you are advocating a Russian / French style revolution they would retain ownership and their would be far less chance of them being loaned to museums and galleries. The Royals are only too aware of their duty wrt to their collections and rarely sell anything of significance unlike many private collectors. When a private collector sells a significant item there is often a mad panic while some public body tries to raise the capital to keep it in the country. There are plenty of big houses for tourists to see as there are plenty of big historically significant private house not open t the public, are we to commandeer all of these. Balmorel and Sandringham are private property, Windsor, historically and visually the most interesting Royal Residence is 80% open to the public about the same as the majority of National Trust / English Heritage properties. The one thing the British Empire was not was a military dictatorship, it may be construed as a Civil Service Dictatorship never military the average size of the Army during Vics reign was 110,000 they must have been pretty good to support a military dictatorship to a quarter of worlds population. The old written constitution nugget, please explain how this would improve my life, would I have more freedoms, would I have better access to justice, would I get paid more……………………
dronskisaint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Are you implying that royalists are unable to do so? I believe I just stated my own position - feel free to make your own interpretation?
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 One overriding reason to keep the monarchy: it annoys republicans.
ecuk268 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Sandringham and Balmoral are the private property of the Queen whilst Buck House and Windsor are Crown Estae property. When did she buy them, and how much rent does she pay for Buck House and Windsor? Or are they a bit like tied cottages?
moonraker Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 When did she buy them, and how much rent does she pay for Buck House and Windsor? Or are they a bit like tied cottages? Balmoral was purcahsed by Queen Victoria and Sandrigham by George VI, and yes Windsor and Buck House are a bit like Tied cottages as is No 10 and 11, Chequers and whole host of other residences provided for public servants / politicians. The upkeep of Windsor and Buck House comes from Grants-in-Aid for upkeep of Royal Palaces and for Royal travel, however it is irrelevant in the argument of repulic or monarchy as in both cases we would still have a state funded Head of State requireing official residences. Indeed if we changed the HoS every 4 /5 yeasr the cost would be greater as the incoming HoS or their partner would surly want to redocorate I bet HM only does so when the existing decor is beyond economic repair.
Wade Garrett Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Staunch Royalist. Big part of our heritage, part of what being British is all about.
badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 One overriding reason to keep the monarchy: it annoys republicans. See if you feel the same with Chuck and the horse faced one in place.
badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Staunch Royalist. Big part of our heritage, part of what being British is all about. If being British is living in the past. It's never been a 'part' of me or my life.
Gingeletiss Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 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. You say it 'really is quite simple' yet overlook the obvious. The USA votes in a president with power, we have a Queen with no power, but vote in a Prime Minister with power. So we in fact, both do the same thing...vote in a leader with power.
Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 You say it 'really is quite simple' yet overlook the obvious. The USA votes in a president with power, we have a Queen with no power, but vote in a Prime Minister with power. So we in fact, both do the same thing...vote in a leader with power. Only those in Whitney(which off the top of my head is David Cameron's constituency) actually elect David Cameron. We have no choice in our leader in this country. We elect an MP who can then chose to support or not support a group within parliament, which then appoints the PM itself effectively. We do not and never have directly elected our leader. We elect a representative.
Gingeletiss Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Only those in Whitney(which off the top of my head is David Cameron's constituency) actually elect David Cameron. We have no choice in our leader in this country. We elect an MP who can then chose to support or not support a group within parliament, which then appoints the PM itself effectively. We do not and never have directly elected our leader. We elect a representative. Wrong, we elect a party, who has a elected leader, so by default, we are in fact electing our PM.
Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Wrong, we elect a party, who has a elected leader, so by default, we are in fact electing our PM. Not at all. We elect an MP who chooses to lend their support to a party. If they want they could withdraw their support for the PM at any time... MPs chose the PM, not the people at all technically. None of us here actually voted for David Cameron.
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 See if you feel the same with Chuck and the horse faced one in place. If it makes Republicans even more grumpy then I'll be happy. Bring it on.
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Not at all. We elect an MP who chooses to lend their support to a party. If they want they could withdraw their support for the PM at any time... MPs chose the PM, not the people at all technically. None of us here actually voted for David Cameron. Meanwhile, back in human nature land....
Wade Garrett Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 If being British is living in the past. It's never been a 'part' of me or my life. Fair enough, my opinion your opinion.
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 If being British is living in the past. It's never been a 'part' of me or my life. Southampton won the FA Cup in 1976. Not of interest to yourself though. (caveat: that's possibly one of the poorest analogies I've ever come up with in my Saints Web Forum career but I'm gonna run with it and see what happens)
badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Southampton won the FA Cup in 1976. Not of interest to yourself though. (caveat: that's possibly one of the poorest analogies I've ever come up with in my Saints Web Forum career but I'm gonna run with it and see what happens) Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. I acknowledge the past, I may have learnt from it, but I don't live there.
Verbal Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 One overriding reason to keep the monarchy: it annoys republicans. A bit playground this, don't you think, trousers? As I said on the recent monarchy thread (!), I'm not that opposed to Liz 2, or even Jug Ears, so long as we reform them into a monarchy more appropriate for a modern democracy - the bicycling royals from The Netherlands or Scandinavia would be fine. That way, sensible people can ignore them and those with their curious fixations can worship them to their hearts' desire. Win win.
Verbal Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Loyal subject over here. GSTQ. How low can you bow? Can you reverse, bowing, out of a doorway without looking? Just checking, because these are important skills for someone such as yourself.
badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 On an associated point, why can the Scots have 'Scotland the Brave', the Welsh have 'Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'', but the English have GSTQ at 6 nations matches ? Liz2 is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Gingeletiss Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Not at all. We elect an MP who chooses to lend their support to a party. If they want they could withdraw their support for the PM at any time... MPs chose the PM, not the people at all technically. None of us here actually voted for David Cameron. See!, this is where we differ, I vote for a party, based on policy, the local MP just happens to be a by product of this, in fact, you can end up with the party of your choice, but not nessessarily your MP of choice. It really depends on how you view the voting system in this country. Even so, I did say we end up with our PM by default, but still through an electorial system.
badgerx16 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Prime Minister is technically not selected by the electorate or MPs - after a General Election the Privy Council advise the reigning monarch as to who should be invited to try to form a Government, protocol dictates that the first choice is the leader of any party with an overall majority in the Commons, if such exists. If there is not a majority, the next option is usually that the leader of the largest party is invited to try to form either a minority Government or a coalition, and he/she reports back as to whether they have been successful, if not the next largest group might be invited, or if no sustainable Government can be formed, a new election is called.
pap Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I am very pleased to see so many deferent mindless little peons on this thread. It will make my eventual election to King that much easier.
Toadhall Saint 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. This.
Jonnyboy Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I am obviously a Royalist No, you're royally obvious.
Joesaint Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 Royalist - but with the house of commons (get rid of the lords though)
Jonnyboy Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 One overriding reason to keep the monarchy: it annoys republicans. One overriding reason to keep workhouses, peasants on the fields and public drownings of witches: it annoys intelligent, normal people.
trousers Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 One overriding reason to keep workhouses, peasants on the fields and public drownings of witches: it annoys intelligent, normal people.
aintforever Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 I think the Royal Family are good for the country, mainly for tourism but also a part of an institution that has served the country well over the years.
Saintandy666 Posted 7 February, 2012 Posted 7 February, 2012 The Prime Minister is technically not selected by the electorate or MPs - after a General Election the Privy Council advise the reigning monarch as to who should be invited to try to form a Government, protocol dictates that the first choice is the leader of any party with an overall majority in the Commons, if such exists. If there is not a majority, the next option is usually that the leader of the largest party is invited to try to form either a minority Government or a coalition, and he/she reports back as to whether they have been successful, if not the next largest group might be invited, or if no sustainable Government can be formed, a new election is called. Good point.
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