FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Royal Family? Fan or not?
The Royal Family? Fan or not?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them. " As do all heads of state. Were the Queen to be replaced by a President tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference. | |||
"Yes ....at least it beats having a politician as head of state "This | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them. As do all heads of state. Were the Queen to be replaced by a President tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference." The difference being that they'd be elected. I'd rather have a politician as my head of state than some serial adulterer who wanted to be a tampon. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes, good for the country, work hard, well worth it. "Can you define 'work hard'? Even their former staff have said they work a minimum number of days a year yet can make it look like they do much more. | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them. As do all heads of state. Were the Queen to be replaced by a President tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference. The difference being that they'd be elected. I'd rather have a politician as my head of state than some serial adulterer who wanted to be a tampon. " Because having an elected Head of State makes the system any fairer? Not to mention the litany of Presidents of republics around the world where the system has become abused and they have de facto inherited their position? Need I mention Assad, Kim Jong-Un, Duvalier, the Bushes, among many others? Not to mention that there are monarchies where the monarch is themselves elected. | |||
 | |||
"They have done me no harm, cost me a minimal amount of money and they represent themselves very well. "agreed | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them. As do all heads of state. Were the Queen to be replaced by a President tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference. The difference being that they'd be elected. I'd rather have a politician as my head of state than some serial adulterer who wanted to be a tampon. Because having an elected Head of State makes the system any fairer? Not to mention the litany of Presidents of republics around the world where the system has become abused and they have de facto inherited their position? Need I mention Assad, Kim Jong-Un, Duvalier, the Bushes, among many others? Not to mention that there are monarchies where the monarch is themselves elected." It's fair in the sense that anyone can believe they can be their country's head of state. Why only mention presidencies in countries where there is widespread corruption? There are plenty of monarchies where it's the same if not worse. | |||
| |||
| |||
" It's fair in the sense that anyone can believe they can be their country's head of state. Why only mention presidencies in countries where there is widespread corruption? There are plenty of monarchies where it's the same if not worse. " What difference does that make? The likelihood of your average Joe Bloggs getting elected is slim, particularly when you bear in mind that most parties in liberal democracies today are pretty much middle-class rather than working class. I didn't just mention corrupt regimes-The USA isn't exactly corrupt. Of course there are corrupt monarchies-but these are all absolute monarchies llike Saudi Arabia and similar Arab absolute monarchies where there is little to no parliamentary system. Constitutional monarchies; on the other hand, tend to be amongst the most stable, liberal, democratic nations in the world. Need I mention Norway, the Netherlands (itself originally founded as a republic), Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand amongst others? Of course, this is true for many republics, such as France, the U.S., Finland, Germany etc., but it is no coincidence I think that most of the worlds most brutal dictatorships are also republics. China anyone? North Korea? Iran? Not to mention historical examples such as Nazi Germany (I cannot seriously see Hitler being elected to power had the German monarchy been retained after World War I) or the Soviet Union. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes, good for the country, work hard, well worth it.
Can you define 'work hard'?
Even their former staff have said they work a minimum number of days a year yet can make it look like they do much more. "Through a work commitment, I did some work arranging some royal visits in Shropshire a couple of years ago,and the time diligence and effort they made on those days impressed me (they being Anne/ Queen & Phil/Charles) | |||
"Yes, good for the country, work hard, well worth it.
Can you define 'work hard'?
Even their former staff have said they work a minimum number of days a year yet can make it look like they do much more.
Through a work commitment, I did some work arranging some royal visits in Shropshire a couple of years ago,and the time diligence and effort they made on those days impressed me (they being Anne/ Queen & Phil/Charles) "Not to mention the fact an *hereditary, *constitutional monarch will be trained *from childhood to be a head of state...something not exactly true of an *elected President | |||
| |||
" Constitutional monarchies; on the other hand, tend to be amongst the most stable, liberal, democratic nations in the world. " How can it be totally democratic when you don't elect your highest office? A constitutional presidency can work the same as a constitutional monarchy. It's strange that you mention WW2 but gloss over WW1, which itself was in part sparked because of disputes between royal houses. And part of why WW2 happened was because people were angry at the result of WW1 in Germany. If the first hadn't have happened it possible the second woudln't have either. How many republics have gone back to being monarchies? If, as you say, it's a better way, why have they not done so? Many of them have had the chance to. Many presidents have been Joe Bloggs, you only have to go through the names. I could run a list but clearly we're both set on our _iews so there's no point wasting my time. | |||
| |||
"I think Harry and Wills are great lads and may be it's all down to media marketing, but for me they have put their family back on track. Queen Liz is a good old girl and Philip is mad a your Grandad. Yeah, I love 'em " | |||
"We elected queen Michael D Higgins so in a way we have gone back to a monarcy and he is smaller than your queen also" With a bit more hair he could be an Ewok. | |||
"I suppose their antics are mildly amusing and Liz sports some great hats. Phil should have his own spin-off show. "I like Phil. | |||
| |||
" How many republics have gone back to being monarchies? If, as you say, it's a better way, why have they not done so? Many of them have had the chance to. " Plenty: Mexico (1863) Cambodia (1993) Spain (twice, 1873, 1975) France (twice, 1804, 1852) Uganda, 1995 Britain, 1660 Poland, 1795 Greece, 1935 Albania, 1928 Netherlands, 1815 Fiji, 1997 Croatia, 1941 Ukraine, 1919 Montenegro, 1941 Serbia, 1941 In addition Brazil came pretty close in 1992, as did Afghanistan in 2001. As for why it is not more widespread: American dominance of the world after 1945. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And how many of them are still monarchies if it was working so well? Because of the Americans? LOL Lets use a practical example... anyone have examples of how the Queen has prevented parliament from doing something that the people didn't want them to do or that wasn't constitutional? " Not quite as simple a constitutional question when your bear in mind the Queen is separately and constitutionally Queen of 16 other states as well as the UK | |||
"[ How many republics have gone back to being monarchies? If, as you say, it's a better way, why have they not done so? Many of them have had the chance to. Plenty: Mexico (1863) Cambodia (1993) Spain (twice, 1873, 1975) France (twice, 1804, 1852) Uganda, 1995 Britain, 1660 Poland, 1795 Greece, 1935 Albania, 1928 Netherlands, 1815 Fiji, 1997 Croatia, 1941 Ukraine, 1919 Montenegro, 1941 Serbia, 1941 In addition Brazil came pretty close in 1992, as did Afghanistan in 2001. As for why it is not more widespread: American dominance of the world after 1945." Go on admit it you googled that | |||
"[ How many republics have gone back to being monarchies? If, as you say, it's a better way, why have they not done so? Many of them have had the chance to. Plenty: Mexico (1863) Cambodia (1993) Spain (twice, 1873, 1975) France (twice, 1804, 1852) Uganda, 1995 Britain, 1660 Poland, 1795 Greece, 1935 Albania, 1928 Netherlands, 1815 Fiji, 1997 Croatia, 1941 Ukraine, 1919 Montenegro, 1941 Serbia, 1941 In addition Brazil came pretty close in 1992, as did Afghanistan in 2001. As for why it is not more widespread: American dominance of the world after 1945. Go on admit it you googled that "Nope  | |||
"[ How many republics have gone back to being monarchies? If, as you say, it's a better way, why have they not done so? Many of them have had the chance to. Plenty: Mexico (1863) Cambodia (1993) Spain (twice, 1873, 1975) France (twice, 1804, 1852) Uganda, 1995 Britain, 1660 Poland, 1795 Greece, 1935 Albania, 1928 Netherlands, 1815 Fiji, 1997 Croatia, 1941 Ukraine, 1919 Montenegro, 1941 Serbia, 1941 In addition Brazil came pretty close in 1992, as did Afghanistan in 2001. As for why it is not more widespread: American dominance of the world after 1945. Go on admit it you googled that
Nope "Gerrof You mean you knew all those dates off the top of your head 
What are you mastermind world champion on monarchies from around the world | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not NOT NOT a fan" Well she's only Lord of Mann rather than Queen so I wouldn't worry to much Not to mention the Isle of Man had its own Lords separate from a personal union with Britain until 1765 | |||
"And how many of them are still monarchies if it was working so well? Because of the Americans? LOL " Britain Spain Uganda Fiji Cambodia Spain Netherlands | |||
| |||
"I think Harry and Wills are great lads and may be it's all down to media marketing, but for me they have put their family back on track. Queen Liz is a good old girl and Philip is mad a your Grandad. Yeah, I love 'em " | |||
"Can't stand them to be honest. Got a lot of respect for the Queen for sticking it out so long and denying Charles the throne though. " This! | |||
"Can't stand them to be honest. Got a lot of respect for the Queen for sticking it out so long and denying Charles the throne though. This!" Huh? Sticking it out so long? | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them. "
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner. | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner."Woah...that's a bit extreme...regardless of one's political position advocating murder is a bit over the top, not to mention irrational and over-emotional. Also; don't forget we did get rid of our royals in that manner-in 1649, and then became a republic-somewhat ironic that the French used to ridicule us for many years as a group of Liberty-loving king-beheaders. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner.
Woah...that's a bit extreme...regardless of one's political position advocating murder is a bit over the top, not to mention irrational and over-emotional.
Also; don't forget we did get rid of our royals in that manner-in 1649, and then became a republic-somewhat ironic that the French used to ridicule us for many years as a group of Liberty-loving king-beheaders."I don't think its OTT. Not when you consider what the royal houses have been responsible for over the years. | |||
"Couldn't we have a jury sytem, whereby once a year, a family is plucked at random, from obscurity and forced to live in total luxury? All they have to do is ride in rolls royces, wave at the plebs, eat poached swan eggs on toast, and laugh at the clothes the foreign dignitaries are wearing. I will volunteer if nobody else will. I'm not afraid of a bit of (snigger) "hard work". After all, Mr Cameron keeps telling us how this country is full of hard working families." Some countries do; albeit every five or so years. It's called 'electing a President'. | |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner.
Woah...that's a bit extreme...regardless of one's political position advocating murder is a bit over the top, not to mention irrational and over-emotional.
Also; don't forget we did get rid of our royals in that manner-in 1649, and then became a republic-somewhat ironic that the French used to ridicule us for many years as a group of Liberty-loving king-beheaders.
I don't think its OTT. Not when you consider what the royal houses have been responsible for over the years."And the British Republic of 1649-1660 was any less responsible for heinous acts? | |||
"Don't see any point in the royal family, and the tv series the royle family was utter shit too." I disagree. Some of the TV series was genius at the time. | |||
"Can't stand them to be honest. Got a lot of respect for the Queen for sticking it out so long and denying Charles the throne though. " I wonder if she will abdicate next year, when she gets to 90. She's fantastic for her age. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! " How would that be any different to now in a practical sense? | |||
"Yes, good for the country, work hard, well worth it. "Doing what? | |||
"Yes, good for the country, work hard, well worth it.
Doing what? "It's very tiring watching your servants working don't ya know? | |||
| |||
"Can't stand them to be honest. Got a lot of respect for the Queen for sticking it out so long and denying Charles the throne though. I wonder if she will abdicate next year, when she gets to 90. She's fantastic for her age. " We could all live that long if we never had to do a days work and had the best health care that money could buy! | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! " Could be worse. President Blair and PM Milliband
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? " They do a great job. It cannot be very nice for them having ever move monitored . They can have no private life what's over . It mus be a bit like being in prison. They earn a lot of tourism revenue for the UK | |||
"Couldn't we have a jury sytem, whereby once a year, a family is plucked at random, from obscurity and forced to live in total luxury? All they have to do is ride in rolls royces, wave at the plebs, eat poached swan eggs on toast, and laugh at the clothes the foreign dignitaries are wearing. I will volunteer if nobody else will. I'm not afraid of a bit of (snigger) "hard work". After all, Mr Cameron keeps telling us how this country is full of hard working families. Some countries do; albeit every five or so years. It's called 'electing a President'." That's choosing someone that stands, I mean jury service, selected at random. We don't get a say in who gets to live in the big house anyway, so why not, NOT get the choice, but it could be you? | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! " Why does a country actually require a (very expensive) head if state? We have a system of government that would work perfectly well without it. | |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. " Who pays for their security? | |||
| |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? They do a great job. It cannot be very nice for them having ever move monitored . They can have no private life what's over . It mus be a bit like being in prison. They earn a lot of tourism revenue for the UK" So would it not be kinder to them to get rid of their status? Don't tell me they are "working hard" out of the goodness of their hearts. Its to keep themselves in the lap of luxury, nothing more. Would they do the job if it didn't come with butlers, maids, cooks, Gardner's, and as much foie gras as they can push down their gullets? Put them in a prewar semi somewhere in Birmingham and pay them minimum wage....on a zero hour contract. | |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. " And how did those things come to be? Where did the money come from to first develop the Crown Estates? Where did the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster come from? If you have proof they were earned then I'd like to see it. Or were they given by parliament to fulfill the expenses of duties, in which case they are state assets? Requisitioned? Taken? Stolen? Commandeered? Given away in a raffle? The full cost of the monarchy is not reflected in the £35m or so that is quoted. | |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. Who pays for their security?" They do. It comes out of the civil list. | |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. Who pays for their security? They do. It comes out of the civil list." Well someone better tell the Metropolitan Police that, because they've been complaining about having to pay the cost of it for many years. | |||
| |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. And how did those things come to be? Where did the money come from to first develop the Crown Estates? Where did the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster come from? If you have proof they were earned then I'd like to see it. Or were they given by parliament to fulfill the expenses of duties, in which case they are state assets? Requisitioned? Taken? Stolen? Commandeered? Given away in a raffle? The full cost of the monarchy is not reflected in the £35m or so that is quoted." 318 years ago William and Mary agreed that the cost of maintaining them, their families and estates should NOT be born by their subjects and what we now know as the civil list was created. The "proof" you ask for is easily found. It's an act of parliament. The £36.5 million is a surplus, the difference between the civil list allocation and the expenditure. It's entirely possible that the assets that comprise the civil list were originally "appropriated" by the crown. However William and Mary did much to right this wrong in 1697 and ensure future generations weren't burdened by the cost of the monarchy. Our current monarchs have nothing to do with past wrongs, that's like you being punished today for one of your ancestors stealing an apple from a street market in 1832. | |||
| |||
"Big fan of the Royal Family, particularly those I've been lucky enough to meet. We frequently see the old argument about how much they cost us, but in cold hard cash they cost us nothing and haven't taken a penny from the taxpayer since 1688. The Royal Family and the associated "cost" of maintaining the civil list actually costs the tax payer nothing. Up to the year 2000 due to efficiencies within the Royal Household £35.5 million was paid back to the treasury (us taxpayers) The Prince of Wales and his associated family receive nothing from the civil list, their income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. And how did those things come to be? Where did the money come from to first develop the Crown Estates? Where did the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster come from? If you have proof they were earned then I'd like to see it. Or were they given by parliament to fulfill the expenses of duties, in which case they are state assets? Requisitioned? Taken? Stolen? Commandeered? Given away in a raffle? The full cost of the monarchy is not reflected in the £35m or so that is quoted. 318 years ago William and Mary agreed that the cost of maintaining them, their families and estates should NOT be born by their subjects and what we now know as the civil list was created. The "proof" you ask for is easily found. It's an act of parliament. The £36.5 million is a surplus, the difference between the civil list allocation and the expenditure. It's entirely possible that the assets that comprise the civil list were originally "appropriated" by the crown. However William and Mary did much to right this wrong in 1697 and ensure future generations weren't burdened by the cost of the monarchy. Our current monarchs have nothing to do with past wrongs, that's like you being punished today for one of your ancestors stealing an apple from a street market in 1832. " There is no relation to be made between William and Mary and QEII, back then the Crown Estate was expected to pay for the costs of civil government along with the cost of the monarchy. It wasn't enough and that's how the civil list came into being. The total income from the Crown Estate has never been used solely for the purposes of monarchy, so why would people think it should today? The Crown Estate, gives its own definition as "The property we manage is owned by the Crown (the state) but is not the private property of the monarch". In which case, if the monarchy were abolished we'd still keep the income from it and it could be used to pay for thousands of doctors, nurses and/or teachers. The Duchies are both state assets, should the monarchy be abolished they would continue to be state assets. Liz and Charles both declared this to be the case when they said their income from the estates should be tax-free because it was income from state assets and in 2011 a court ruled that the Duchy of Cornwall was in fact a public authority. This thread is frying me head - I'm done with it, I can't take the sycophancy. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"why is she called Elizabeth the 2nd cant recall an Elizabeth ever being on the throne of Scotland. n" Because since the Union of 1707 between England and Scotland the subsequent British monarchs have used the English numerals. Which is why William IV of Britain was the fourth, despite there being only two Kings of Scotland before him called William Likewise why Edward VII of Britain was the seventh; despite there being only one King of Scotland called Edward before him. Besides that; it was decided in 1952/3; due to controversy over post boxes in Scotland being defaced to remove the 'II'; that whichever number was higher would be used. So; if there were a future King of Britain called James; he would be James VIII of Britain; rather than James III, because the Scottish number was higher (there being seven Kings of Scotland by that name; but only two of England) At any rate; the numbers given to monarchs don't always follow a logical sequence: to wit; the first King of Italy was called Victor Emanuel II (because he was previously King of Sardinia and kept the number); there was only one Emperor of Germany called Frederick; yet he was Frederick III, and so on. The numbers often reflect historical and political considerations. To give a modern example: the Queen is also 'Elizabeth II of Australia' and 'Elizabeth II of Canada', despite the fact there has never been an Elizabeth the First of either of those countries. | |||
"They have done me no harm, cost me a minimal amount of money and they represent themselves very well. " | |||
"If you set aside the arguments re the economic worth of the Royals to the UK, what deeply puzzles me is why are we in thrall, on a personal level, to a family who have no particular talent other than breed in order to maintain the status quo. Why, we suspend our normal critical faculties to fawn, curtsy, bow, be the 'subject' of, turn up in our thousands in the rain just to get a glance of, listen and watch our media's nauseating forelock tugging, ask God to save her, when we see that kind of blind obedience applied to 'leaders' in other countries we are appalled. What do we have missing in our lives that we need to 'love' a family that we don't know and exists in direct conflict with what we believe to be contemporary core values of equality, merit, and democracy. Beats me! " You'd probably still get that in a republic-look at how the Kennedys and other families were adored by Americans. | |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? They do a great job. It cannot be very nice for them having ever move monitored . They can have no private life what's over . It mus be a bit like being in prison. They earn a lot of tourism revenue for the UK So would it not be kinder to them to get rid of their status? Don't tell me they are "working hard" out of the goodness of their hearts. Its to keep themselves in the lap of luxury, nothing more. Would they do the job if it didn't come with butlers, maids, cooks, Gardner's, and as much foie gras as they can push down their gullets? Put them in a prewar semi somewhere in Birmingham and pay them minimum wage....on a zero hour contract." The U.S. and French Presidents amongst many others also have butlers, maids, valets, chamberlains, etc. etc. so I really don't understand the point you are making here. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! Why does a country actually require a (very expensive) head if state? We have a system of government that would work perfectly well without it." Any Head of State is expensive to maintain, regardless of whether it is a monarch or President. Regardless of whether it is a Presidential Republic (like the US); where the President has wide-ranging powers; semi-Presidential (like France), where the power is shared with a Prime Minister but the President still has substantial power, or simply like in Germany, Israel, or Ireland where the President has almost no powers apart from reserve powers and in effect simply signs bills into law (in effect the republican equivalent of a constitutional monarch); someone is still needed to sign bills into law. | |||
| |||
"I (S) really like them. I certainly don't think they do the country any harm at all. They're loved by a LOT of people around the world which garners a lot of goodwill towards the uk which most politicians (yes, even the Scottish ones) in turn spend a great deal of time trying to undo. Heads of state don't necessarily have to take an active constitutional role, often they can be symbolic, the figurehead of the nation. " Which; as I pointed out earlier; is equally as much true of the powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland as it is any constitutional monarch As an aside; here's a little factoid for you: can anyone name the country that has a President who is simultaneously the monarch of another country at the same time? Right answer gets this statue built out of my bellbutton fluff and a flat bottle of Tizer. | |||
| |||
| |||
"why is she called Elizabeth the 2nd cant recall an Elizabeth ever being on the throne of Scotland. n Because since the Union of 1707 between England and Scotland the subsequent British monarchs have used the English numerals. Which is why William IV of Britain was the fourth, despite there being only two Kings of Scotland before him called William Likewise why Edward VII of Britain was the seventh; despite there being only one King of Scotland called Edward before him. Besides that; it was decided in 1952/3; due to controversy over post boxes in Scotland being defaced to remove the 'II'; that whichever number was higher would be used. So; if there were a future King of Britain called James; he would be James VIII of Britain; rather than James III, because the Scottish number was higher (there being seven Kings of Scotland by that name; but only two of England) At any rate; the numbers given to monarchs don't always follow a logical sequence: to wit; the first King of Italy was called Victor Emanuel II (because he was previously King of Sardinia and kept the number); there was only one Emperor of Germany called Frederick; yet he was Frederick III, and so on. The numbers often reflect historical and political considerations. To give a modern example: the Queen is also 'Elizabeth II of Australia' and 'Elizabeth II of Canada', despite the fact there has never been an Elizabeth the First of either of those countries." I fooking love you. In an awesome, respect, kind of way. Not an "ahemcough" kind of way. | |||
| |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? They do a great job. It cannot be very nice for them having ever move monitored . They can have no private life what's over . It mus be a bit like being in prison. They earn a lot of tourism revenue for the UK So would it not be kinder to them to get rid of their status? Don't tell me they are "working hard" out of the goodness of their hearts. Its to keep themselves in the lap of luxury, nothing more. Would they do the job if it didn't come with butlers, maids, cooks, Gardner's, and as much foie gras as they can push down their gullets? Put them in a prewar semi somewhere in Birmingham and pay them minimum wage....on a zero hour contract. The U.S. and French Presidents amongst many others also have butlers, maids, valets, chamberlains, etc. etc. so I really don't understand the point you are making here." Well give them the same conditions to. Its a waste of money, money that could be spent on much more worthwhile projects. | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! Why does a country actually require a (very expensive) head if state? We have a system of government that would work perfectly well without it. Any Head of State is expensive to maintain, regardless of whether it is a monarch or President. Regardless of whether it is a Presidential Republic (like the US); where the President has wide-ranging powers; semi-Presidential (like France), where the power is shared with a Prime Minister but the President still has substantial power, or simply like in Germany, Israel, or Ireland where the President has almost no powers apart from reserve powers and in effect simply signs bills into law (in effect the republican equivalent of a constitutional monarch); someone is still needed to sign bills into law." That doesn't explain the vast expense. | |||
"I am a (constitutional) monarchist... I find it funny how many republicans that think replacing the monarchy with a politician is really a good idea. God help us if we ever end up with Premier CaMoron and Prime Minister Boris! Why does a country actually require a (very expensive) head if state? We have a system of government that would work perfectly well without it. Any Head of State is expensive to maintain, regardless of whether it is a monarch or President. Regardless of whether it is a Presidential Republic (like the US); where the President has wide-ranging powers; semi-Presidential (like France), where the power is shared with a Prime Minister but the President still has substantial power, or simply like in Germany, Israel, or Ireland where the President has almost no powers apart from reserve powers and in effect simply signs bills into law (in effect the republican equivalent of a constitutional monarch); someone is still needed to sign bills into law." Why is someone needed? Think about it. You don't need anyone to sign anything. They can't say no, they are redundant. Anyone could do it. You only nerd a rubber stamp. | |||
| |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? They do a great job. It cannot be very nice for them having ever move monitored . They can have no private life what's over . It mus be a bit like being in prison. They earn a lot of tourism revenue for the UK So would it not be kinder to them to get rid of their status? Don't tell me they are "working hard" out of the goodness of their hearts. Its to keep themselves in the lap of luxury, nothing more. Would they do the job if it didn't come with butlers, maids, cooks, Gardner's, and as much foie gras as they can push down their gullets? Put them in a prewar semi somewhere in Birmingham and pay them minimum wage....on a zero hour contract. The U.S. and French Presidents amongst many others also have butlers, maids, valets, chamberlains, etc. etc. so I really don't understand the point you are making here. Well give them the same conditions to. Its a waste of money, money that could be spent on much more worthwhile projects." Which just proves my point that there is no real difference between the Head of State of a republic and a constitutional apart from the fact that one is called 'King' or 'Queen' (or some other monarchical title), the other is called 'President'. | |||
"Because all bills need a signature, constitutionally, in order to become law. Even in countries like the French Republic of 1792-1804, the Soviet Union, or present-day Switzerland; where there was/is no single Head of Stare, the fact remains *someone* needs to put their authorititive John Hancock on the document." So, change the constitution, or allow anyone who is not in government (John Q Citizen for example) to sign it. No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. | |||
| |||
| |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party?" My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. | |||
 | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards." On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions." Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. | |||
| |||
| |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed." A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. " Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. | |||
"as they keep breeding the hangers on get more and more ,the expenses get more and more PLUS has anyone noticed that as he gets older harry is more and more like james Hewitt.....deffo not Charlie boys .....good old di put it about a bit" Quite a feat when you bear in mind that she didn't even meet James Hewitt until Harry was two. That and the fact that there are plenty of gingers in Diana's family; including but not limited to her brother, Earl Spencer (in fact one of the 19th century Earls was nicknamed 'the Red Earl' on account of his ginger hair) At any rate, Harry bears a striking resemblance to his great-grandfather, Prince Andrew of Greece (Prince Phillip's dad), and his father, George I of Greece. | |||
| |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp?" Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does." *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months)" So it can work then? Bagsy me first! | |||
"Never so much as washed a cup and saucer " Wasn't: *The Queen a trained and serving Army mechanic during World War Two? *Prince Phillip a serving Navy officer during World War Two? *Prince Andrew a serving Navy officer during the Falklands War? *Prince William a trained-and serving-helicopter pilot? *Prince Harry a serving-and veteran-army officer? Hardly 'has never worked a day in their lives' | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government." In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months) So it can work then? Bagsy me first!" It didn't work in France. It only works in Switzerland because the country is highly decentralised and in San Marino because San Marino is so tiny. I can't see it working in a large nation-state like Britain. | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months) So it can work then? Bagsy me first! It didn't work in France. It only works in Switzerland because the country is highly decentralised and in San Marino because San Marino is so tiny. I can't see it working in a large nation-state like Britain." Why? Size has nothing to do with it. As they say. | |||
| |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do." In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months) So it can work then? Bagsy me first! It didn't work in France. It only works in Switzerland because the country is highly decentralised and in San Marino because San Marino is so tiny. I can't see it working in a large nation-state like Britain. Why? Size has nothing to do with it. As they say." It didn't work in France because the random appointees were still prey to party interests. You don't get that in Microstates like San Marino (or eg Monaco or Luxembourg, etc), where politicians tend to be independents, or highly decentralised states like Switzerland. Bigger population=more political parties/existence of Political parties. | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result." I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. | |||
"she was well aware of mr Hewitt well b4 this check ya history Diana had willy in arms about six months old when they first met at polo match.pictures in papers at time ,ps good girl loved the pork sword .....think of the trouble she would create if still alive today.....but hey there is another forum title.......do u think di was done ???????????" No. Which still doesn't explain why Harry looks a hell of a lot like members of Prince Phillip's family. | |||
| |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. " And what did we get as a result? A dictatorial Republic! But it does show that my premise of the Queen refusing to sign such a bill would work in practice. | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. " Actually... *Queen Anne did in 1708. *George IV did in 1827. *William IV did in 1832. *George V did in 1911. | |||
"This has been a cracking thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it. And of course, it's lincolnjay for the win.........." Thanski very muchski budski! | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. " Also; as the present Queen is not only Queen of Britain, but of several other countries as well (quite separately I hasten to add); whilst she hasn't in right of Britain refused to sign a bill, she has refused to sign bills and dismissed Prime Ministers in some of her other Kingdoms: *Pakistan, 1954 (dismissed a Prime Minister who did not have a majority in Parliament) *Australia, 1974 (pretty much the same circumstances as in Pakistan) *Fiji, 1987 (refused to sign bills that would have introduced laws that were racist and discriminatory against the immigrant Indian population of Fiji) | |||
"No need for palaces flunkies and armed guards. On the contrary; a building is needed for the actual signing of bills into law to take place (ok; it doesn't have to be a palace, but you do need a building), as well as somewhere to receive ambassadors and accept their credentials, as well as visiting foreign Heads of State (another two roles that all Heads of State have), staff is needed on some level to handle the colossal loads of paperwork (you would be surprised at the number of state papers the Queen has to look over in a single day); and as for armed guards, of course, at that level, security of some description is obviously needed. A building to sign legislation. Portacabin. Use Chequers if need be, its not actually required. The staff required to create the paperwork would remain the same, its not that large. You don't need armed guards to protect someone who would only be filling a position for a few weeks at a time. Why would anyone kill someone who is, in essence, merely a rubber stamp? Well quite; regarding the palaces. Certainly that is something that could be stripped back. There are examples of monarchies where the 'palace' is basically just a normal-sized house-eg Samoa, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea. The Queen could perhaps take a leaf out of their book (well, if she wasn't already Queen of Papua New Guinea and Queen of Tuvalu already) point taken with that. As regards 'get someone to fill the position for a week or so'; the French Republic from 1792-1795 actually had this system-a random group of anons were selected and rotated weekly as formal Head of State.Guess what? Several were assassinated. This is also the system in place in Switzerland (7 people are selected and rotated every few weeks as head of state) and San Marino (the same; only its two people and it's every few months) So it can work then? Bagsy me first! It didn't work in France. It only works in Switzerland because the country is highly decentralised and in San Marino because San Marino is so tiny. I can't see it working in a large nation-state like Britain. Why? Size has nothing to do with it. As they say. It didn't work in France because the random appointees were still prey to party interests. You don't get that in Microstates like San Marino (or eg Monaco or Luxembourg, etc), where politicians tend to be independents, or highly decentralised states like Switzerland. Bigger population=more political parties/existence of Political parties." But what I propose is a person whose job is to sign legislation, regardless of content. Even the queen had no active role or realistic chance of effecting legislation. If they can't say no, then their personal politics don't matter. Its just a revolving "Royle" family, on the same income as Jim and Barbara. They can employ Lurkio to brew up, out of their own pockets if they want. But I'm not paying for Denise, David and Baby David to sit on their arises as well! | |||
| |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. Actually... *Queen Anne did in 1708. *George IV did in 1827. *William IV did in 1832. *George V did in 1911." And you think QE2 would? Really? In THIS country? | |||
| |||
"all the girls lef this site/thread a few hours ago to go coo at the new baby. more important is the constitutional balance. hrh was the head of state, but she signed away sovereignty of uk to the eu. no doubt she did so cos in reality she has no real power. so what purpose do they actually serve? tourism would survive - who the fuck decides to go somewhere cos it has a queen?? " Lots of blokes go to certain clubs, specifically for that reason. | |||
"But pretty much every Head of State-those of republics included (although there are exceptions, some being monarchs) have 'palaces flunkies and guards'. As for choosing someone outside of the government to head the state-someone who is apolitical and isn't part of a political party-isn't that the whole point of a constitutional monarchy (whether elected or hereditary) rather than a republic; where a President is inevitably always a creature of their particular political party? My point is, don't give them guards, flunkies, palaces etc. I'm saying pick someone at random, like jury service. If all they are doing is signing their mame ( as the queen does) then anyone can do it. She can't say no, and she can't promote her own personal _iews. Do the same with a pleb, and save millions. Not *quite* all she does. The Queen; like the near-powerless Presidents of Germany, Israel and Ireland, in addition receives foreign ambassadors and their credentials, receives visiting foreign Heads of State, and in the event of a war, formally declares war. Ooh like that's hard work! Do come in Mr Ncomo, its fish fingers for tea. Oh by the way I am formally declaring war on Mars. It doesn't require a specialist to do that. Just do what the PM tells you. That's all Brenda does. *but* she has no constitutional requirement to do what the Prime Minister tells her to, it's just convention. Indeed, in the situation that we had a Hitler-esque Prime Minister somehow get elected and try to push through say; racist legislation (as Hitler-as German PM, did with President Hindenburg-successfully), the Queen could refuse to sign the document and there is absolutely nothing the Prime Minister could do about it. But a President-belonging as he would to the political party of the PM-would be much less likely to oppose the PM, as was demonstrated in 1933 when the right-wing Hindenburg appointed Hitler his Head of Government. In theory she can refuse. None of them ever have. Because they know what can happen if they do. In Bulgaria; during World War Two, when the Prime Minister (who had been foisted on the Bulgarians by Hitler) tried to put through a bill to round up the country's Jewish population, the King, Boris III, refused to sign the bill. Each and every one of Bulgaria's Jews survived the war as a result. I meant our royals. None have ever stood up to parliament. They have too much to lose by doing so. They learned that the hard way a long time ago. Actually... *Queen Anne did in 1708. *George IV did in 1827. *William IV did in 1832. *George V did in 1911. And you think QE2 would? Really? In THIS country?" Why not? She did in Pakistan, Fiji and Australia. | |||
"But the *point* of being able to say no is a safeguard on democracy. There is a reason so many states hem in the power of the Prime Minister and the government in this way. And that applies to Republics with figurehead Presidents as much as it does constitutional monarchies." But in saying no, she knows what will happen to their royal "privileges". She will never do it. A poor person would have less to lose. | |||
"But the *point* of being able to say no is a safeguard on democracy. There is a reason so many states hem in the power of the Prime Minister and the government in this way. And that applies to Republics with figurehead Presidents as much as it does constitutional monarchies. But in saying no, she knows what will happen to their royal "privileges". She will never do it. A poor person would have less to lose." Why not? It didn't make Boris III of Bulgaria lose his; nor did she lose her 'Royal privileges' as regards Australia. Why would Britain be any different? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I know that a lot of my parents/ grandparents generation absolutely loved the Royal Family. I tell my Nan she's like the Queen as she's the same age . I'm always reading about how much they cost our country even the more distant members. I've always liked the fact we are a Monarchy and think that they bring a lot of revenue into the country. I must admit, I've never taken to Prince Charles and can't imagine him being our King. Do you think they still have a role or would you prefer us to become a Republic? " Wwen our brave and unappreciated young men and women go to war, its ` for queen and country` not for the Pm of the day.. So the Queen as a a figurehead is essential not withstanding She is Queen to 22 other countries and in doing 400 official engagements this year will singularly do more than any other politition for the UKs exports and diplomacay overseas.. Simularly the Duke of kent.. . This whole country is going to shite so I never quite understand the knockers wanting to replace them .. Also dont all the profits from the Duchy of Cornwall go to charity? Rather a Royal Family than a Blair type appointed crony representing us on the world stage. | |||
| |||
"love the royal family, especially the scene where they were wall paper stripping... " `put the kettle on Malcolm` | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
Agree, total parasites.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner." | |||
| |||
| |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
Agree, total parasites.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner."Ah it is nice to see a totalitarian who wants us to be ruled by a Stalin... Bet you will be one of the first against the wall.
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not a royalist at all. They serve no real purpose. They exist on their own PR and the media fetish that surrounds them.
Agree, total parasites.
They should have been done away with as the Russians did with theirs. And in the same manner.
Ah it is nice to see a totalitarian who wants us to be ruled by a Stalin...
Bet you will be one of the first against the wall.
"Not against the wall. In front of it. Aiming. | |||
"But the *point* of being able to say no is a safeguard on democracy. There is a reason so many states hem in the power of the Prime Minister and the government in this way. And that applies to Republics with figurehead Presidents as much as it does constitutional monarchies. But in saying no, she knows what will happen to their royal "privileges". She will never do it. A poor person would have less to lose. Why not? It didn't make Boris III of Bulgaria lose his; nor did she lose her 'Royal privileges' as regards Australia. Why would Britain be any different?" Because they could be got rid of, if they attempt to effect political decisions. They were told that a long time ago. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"To think we fought off the Germans in two world wars, when all along the German, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, sorry (Windsor) family, ruled Britain all along. Ironic" Not really when the last cognatic ancestor of the present Queen to be German was Prince Albert; and that's her great-great grandfather. The Present Queen had a Scottish mother after all; and all her recent ancestors going back to George III with the exception of Prince Albert were born and brought up in Britain and speaking English as a first language. As ancestry goes; that makes her more 'British', than I am. As for the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, this is incidentally the same Royal House as in Belgium (and formerly in Bulgaria and Portugal too. But then Royal families have always been pretty cosmopolitan in character anyway. To wit: the Spanish, Swedish, Luxembourgois and Monegasque Royal families are French in origin. The Greek, Norweigan, Danish, Russian (and eventually when Prince Charles becomes King) ruling or formerly ruling families are of Danish origin. The German, Romanian, Bulgarian, Belgian and British are all ultimately of German origin. Europe-wide, only the Italian, French, Serbian, Montengrin and Albanian royal families have origins that can be pinpointed to the country that they rule or claimed to rule. All this is pretty moot anyway though. What usually happened when a foreign royal was invited in from overseas to occupy a throne was that the new ruler would do everything to make themselves as 'native' as they could be with their adopted country, and bought their families up accordingly; often learning the language, converting to the religion of their adopted country, or wearing native dress. This was true Europe-wide, and was certainly true of the German antecedents of the present Queen. Anyway; as the ancestors of today's English were settlers from Saxony, who better to reign over Britain than a direct descendent of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who after all are a minor branch of the Royal House of...yes you've guessed it...Saxony. Anyway, once Prince Charles becomes King any such claims relating to the Royal Family wont matter anyway, as his family are not Saxe-Coburg and Gothas but rather an offshoot of the Greek branch of the Danish Royal family; the Oldenburgs. | |||
"Phillip went to a school in Germany controlled by the Nazi party and a relative of his worked for the SS." In fact, the school Phillip attended in Germany was considered unusual for being run by a head and staff who were notoriously anti-Nazi. And he spent most of his schooling in Gordonstoun rather than in Germany. But as for members of Phillip's family being pro-nazi, whilst two of his brothers-in-law were indeed members of the Nazi party, spare a thought for his mother, Princess Alice of Greece. When the Germans invaded Greece in 1941, the German governor of Athens visited her and asked if he could do anything for her, such was her public standing in Greek society. She replied "Yes. You can get out of my country." At great personal danger to herself, she hid and helped escape in great numbers members of the Jewish community of Athens, so many that she is now officially listed in Israel amongst the 'Righteous Amongst the Nations', an award that Prince Phillip publicly accepted on his late mother's behalf in 1998. | |||
" We could all live that long if we never had to do a days work and had the best health care that money could buy!" Well either that or the fact she had a mother who lived to 102. Genetics has more to do with lifespan than anything else...as George Bernard Shaw once said: "I have lived so long because I picked the right grandparents." | |||
