Creative Assembly King Charles III [Archive]

InsaneApache

11-16-2008, 17:18

Ol' Charlie boy is getting ideas about spouting forth his wisdoms to the great unwashed. I say that if he wants to speak out and spread his ideas he should run for office.

Members of Prince Charles’s inner circle are preparing the ground for him to break the monarch’s traditional vow of silence when he is king.

The Prince of Wales, who celebrated his 60th birthday on Friday, has told confidants he would like his role to “evolve” so that his knowledge and experience are not wasted once he inherits the crown, Jonathan Dimbleby, his friend and biographer, reveals today.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Dimbleby says that “there are now discreet moves afoot to redefine the future role of the sovereign so that it would allow King Charles III to speak out on matters of national and international importance in ways that at the moment would be unthinkable”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5162710.ece

Git.

Prince Cobra

11-16-2008, 17:20

Isn't it more appropriate to have a younger King? There are many cases in history of grandchildren inheriting his grandparent...

JR-

11-16-2008, 17:48

i am all for Charlie III in principle, and the monarchy in general, but whether we need an outspoken monarch is another question entirely.

i shall need to give it more thought.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-16-2008, 18:27

I was under the impreshion that the current Queen was the first monarch to be truely neutral, and mainly because the last time she intervened she messed up, badly.

CrossLOPER

11-16-2008, 18:27

Hooray! I look forward to a Saudi Arabia in Europe.

KarlXII

11-16-2008, 18:38

Hooray! I look forward to a Saudi Arabia in Europe.

LOL.

GeneralHankerchief

11-16-2008, 18:38

This is exactly the reason why the Queen is hanging on for as long as she is.

rory_20_uk

11-16-2008, 19:05

Outspoken? No. Able to give opinion? Yes.

It is a shame that politicians aren't so self censorial when they screw up.

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

11-16-2008, 19:39

Suddenly, the thought of being ruled by Brown or Cameron doesn't seem so bad anymore...

JR-

11-16-2008, 20:03

I was under the impreshion that the current Queen was the first monarch to be truely neutral, and mainly because the last time she intervened she messed up, badly.

i'm not aware of that.............

King Henry V

11-16-2008, 20:09

I don't think the Prince of Wales would make a bad king. I hold a great deal of respect for his views on conservation, urban planning and architecture, views which have often been proved to be correct in the long run, and stand in stark contrast to the short-sighted culture of greed the results of which we can all see the results.

The_Doctor

11-16-2008, 20:31

The Federal Republic of the British Isles.:yes:

Louis VI the Fat

11-16-2008, 20:45

Long live her Britannic Majesty, and long may she reign!

~;)

King Henry V

11-16-2008, 21:20

The Federal Republic of the British Isles.:yes:

I think the Southern Irish would disagree...

Rhyfelwyr

11-16-2008, 21:32

Bring back the Commonwealth!

Kralizec

11-16-2008, 21:43

I don't know how it works for you Brits, but over here our cabinet is held completely responsible for everything the queen does or says. Just about everything she says in public is written beforehand by someone else.

Personally I think that if Charles wants to do something useful he should renounce his right to the throne and get an honest job.

CountArach

11-16-2008, 21:44

The_Doctor

11-16-2008, 22:54

I think the Southern Irish would disagree...

After they see our prosperity then will be begging to join the union.

Incongruous

11-16-2008, 23:15

Ol' Charlie boy is getting ideas about spouting forth his wisdoms to the great unwashed. I say that if he wants to speak out and spread his ideas he should run for office.

Git.

Umm, okay. Anyone who thinks that the Commons is any better at working for the people needs to slap themselves. To be honest I would rather have a more active monarch than a quite one, the Commons has become so vile that almost anything would be better.
Charles would be able to publicise the more disgusting excesses of the "representative government" the Commons pretends to be.

JR-

11-16-2008, 23:19

Australia looks set for another Republican Referendum in 2012... this time it won't be rigged.

So the Queen just has to hold out another 4 or 5 years. I never thouht I would ever say this in my life, but in all seriousness... Long Live the Queen...

it would be a sad thing for Oz, NZ or Ca to become a republic, but if that is there choice then they have my full support. regardless of whether they have the queen as head of state they will always share a common ancestry, shared ideals, similar goals, and much the same methods. in short they are family that the UK can depend on, much like the US.

Mikeus Caesar

11-17-2008, 01:15

InsaneApache

11-17-2008, 01:16

Australia looks set for another Republican Referendum in 2012... this time it won't be rigged.

So the Queen just has to hold out another 4 or 5 years. I never thouht I would ever say this in my life, but in all seriousness... Long Live the Queen...

I know where you're coming from mate, the thought of an ex PM being shoehorned in as the gaffer scares the :daisy: outta me.

Long live the queen!

:balloon2:

Incongruous

11-17-2008, 02:01

For the love of the gods, Long Live the Queen. The last thing the country and the Commonwealth needs is King Charles. We can only hope Her Majesty outlives her son. A terrible thing to say, i know, but at least that way William can become King. I have the feeling he would make a great King.

What in God's name is the reason for your hatred of Charles to the point of you wishing him dead?
Where has this absurd sentiment sprung up from? His awful marriage to an awful woman?

Mikeus Caesar

11-17-2008, 02:10

What in God's name is the reason for your hatred of Charles to the point of you wishing him dead?
Where has this absurd sentiment sprung up from? His awful marriage to an awful woman?

No, just that the man's a complete muppet. If he is to inherit one of the most respected positions in the world, he'd do best to keep his opinions to himself, or risk making us a laughing stock.

PBI

11-17-2008, 02:50

A terrible thing to say, i know, but at least that way William can become King. I have the feeling he would make a great King.

I must say I'm not sure I can see where you're coming from there; I've always got the impression he's a bit of a twit. In many ways a younger version of his father, in fact.

EDIT: But I do agree that if and when Charles becomes King, he would do well to take note of one of the things that has made his mother such a popular monarch, and keep his mouth shut on politics.

Incongruous

11-17-2008, 03:06

No, just that the man's a complete muppet. If he is to inherit one of the most respected positions in the world, he'd do best to keep his opinions to himself, or risk making us a laughing stock.

Why is he a complete muppet?

Mikeus Caesar

11-17-2008, 05:10

Why is he a complete muppet?

Irrational views on subjects such as homeopathic medicine, horse of a wife.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2008, 05:29

Well, hopefully he ends up being a good, strong, and quiet King. Either that or exactly like the Duke of Edinburgh - entertaining.

God Save the Queen.

CountArach

11-17-2008, 06:23

Well, hopefully he ends up being a good, strong, and quiet King. Either that or exactly like the Duke of Edinburgh - entertaining.

God Save the Queen.
I thought you favoured an Interventionist King?

Banquo's Ghost

11-17-2008, 08:26

What amuses me about the British and conversations on the succession, is the quaint idea that you have any opinion that counts.

To quote one of the finest French philosophers, Denis, "You don't vote for kings."

The essence of monarchy is heredity. Charles succeeds as your head of state whether you like it or not. Otherwise, get a republic - and then you can decide on the basis of looks, youth, quality of wife, just as the rest of the world does.

Having said that, the Prince of Wales is just kicking against the traces. He knows all too well the wearisome burden of the Crown's inability to comment on almost anything - save in private. This has been tradition pretty much since the usurper William of Orange. The monarch who abrogates this tradition will, in all likelihood, be the last of their line to hold a role beyond an elaborate method for relieving tourists of their dollars.

The Prince is a decent cove, and makes fascinating conversation in private. He suffers from a serious disconnect to real society, but is warm, passionate and well-informed in a theoretical sense. In this, he is not much different from many politicians I have met.

The biggest mistake the monarchy has made is to try and pander to the people. Monarchy stands on its own, and relies on mysticism and ancient right. If a modern country is going to have one, they better get used to the unfairness inherent in the system.

Ronin

11-17-2008, 13:39

Why is he a complete muppet?

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??

either he is completely bonkers or he desperately needs to be referred to a good optometrist :wiseguy:

Kralizec

11-17-2008, 14:19

He knows all too well the wearisome burden of the Crown's inability to comment on almost anything - save in private. This has been tradition pretty much since the usurper William of Orange.

It was my understanding that the throne was still a pretty strong position until it passed to the Hannoverians, who didn't speak English and weren't particulary interested in British politics anyway- paving the way for a more dominant position of the cabinets.

The rest of your post is true enough, but I don't think that changing the head of state to a president (in the German mould) would make much difference at all, except that it would be marginally cheaper. It would be more acceptable for such a president to give his or her opinion about stuff (even though they're expected to distance themselves from petty politics, too) but the tasks of the office would still be mostly ceremonial. That is, unless you abandon the parliamentary system entirely.

I myself am a republican in principle, but it's near the bottom of my priority list :shrug:

Louis VI the Fat

11-17-2008, 14:19

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.

Tribesman

11-17-2008, 14:32

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

5 minutes with Diana is enough to make you put her in a car with a drunken driver , noytonlywas she bloody annoying she was thick as pig **** too

JR-

11-17-2008, 15:40

I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.
agreed, there was not much to recommend diana barring her looks, and a great deal to dislike.

the world just ended, i agreed with tribesman too. ;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-17-2008, 16:32

Ouch, I also agree with Tribesman. Although the flipside is that Charles was clearly never in love with Diana, Heir and Spare was the purpose of that marriage and the spare is still supsect so she couldn't even do that.

The only people who didn't know this at the time were the masses, and Diana. I'm sure her parents and her brother were well aware of what they were getting her into, though.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2008, 22:29

I thought you favoured an Interventionist King?

Yes, but only within the appropriate system. The King should also remain dignified and diplomatic when doing so.

Rhyfelwyr

11-17-2008, 22:55

I think Charles is a nice guy, he means well, and probably has a romanticised view of the monarchy and its role.

But when you consider that his decisions could influence the running of the country, especially at a time like this (or maybe we will be coming out of the economic problems, but still feeling the effects), is it really wise to let him have too much influence?

This is the whole problem of a heriditary monarchy - not all monarchs will be up to the job. I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

Mangudai

11-17-2008, 22:59

Britain is an unconstitutional monarchy. Most people think the House of Commons rules. But, in fact every bill passed by the House of Commons must be signed by the monarch before it becomes law.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2008, 23:06

I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

That's called a President. ~;)

Strike For The South

11-17-2008, 23:07

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

CrossLOPER

11-17-2008, 23:39

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.
It's like American Idol.

Incongruous

11-17-2008, 23:42

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

Well tbh the way certain democracies behave the people may aswell not have a say anyway, the way the Commons is acting these days we may as well give up voting now. I really do not understand the growin British dislike for the the Lords or the Monarchy, the Commons will end up being far far worse, in fact it already is.

As for Charles being a muppet, clearly those who think he is, have no real reason to think so but are simply keeping in step with the popular line:dizzy2:

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

Strike For The South

11-17-2008, 23:44

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

Incongruous

11-17-2008, 23:53

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different vagina they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

I do not have a problem with the idea of bowing to him, none at all, but lets remember that in the UK it should not just be the Monarch who rules, but the two Houses as well. I just dislike the Commons continued accumulation of power.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2008, 23:57

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

So all inheritance tax should be raised to one hundred percent so that everyone has an equal start?

Rhyfelwyr

11-18-2008, 00:29

I always knew you were a communist at heart SFTS!

:clown:

CountArach

11-18-2008, 08:32

Jolt

11-18-2008, 12:26

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

Banquo's Ghost

11-18-2008, 13:11

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

Largely in a pit at Tyburn.

Captain Fishpants

11-18-2008, 13:20

Just as a small point of interest: it's unlikely that a "Charles III" will ever sit on the British throne. He's more likely to be George VII when (if?) he ever succeeds to the Crown.

The previous two monarchs called Charles were both Stuarts, and their dynasty wasn't exactly a rip-roaring success overall, having caused a civil war, and provoked serial rebellions for (1688) and against (1715 and '45) and even between bits of the family (Monmouth's rebellion against James II). Charles I remains the only English/British monarch to declare war on his own people, and the only one to be tried and executed by his subjects. Charles II is often portrayed as a romantic figure, but he was a serial womaniser with poor impulse control was almost certainly receiving a subsidy from the French Louis XIV and is likely to have converted to Catholicism. These are not good precedents for a name.

As a sprig of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (hurriedly renamed "Windsor" when having German antecedents was a problem during the First World War), the current Charles Philip Arthur George is more likely to go with the more-recent family tradition by being George VII.

rory_20_uk

11-18-2008, 13:39

I was wondering who was going to pick up on that. Charles has already stated that he would change his name to George when he became King.

Having Prince Albert then King Edward VII as a predecessor there is a good stock of randiness in the current bloodline.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-18-2008, 14:05

So, to summarize, the most common response to Mr. Windsor's comments would be something like:

"Shut up, twit! You're supposed to be a quiet, vaguely regal-looking figurehead. If we want you to express and actual opinion we'll beat it out of you."

Followed by a substantial minority assessment of:

"Abolish the monarchy now (& House of Lords?); tradition is bollocks anyway."

Given the tenor of Charles' "supporters" on this thread, he might as well acede to the monarchy (such as it is) under the name of Katerina der Grosse -- but that would start all the "horse" comments again, wouldn't it?

Prince Cobra

11-18-2008, 16:42

Monarchy has certian advantages:

You have a certain figure that can be mentioned truly independent from any source of power in our society. No need to be elected and to be responsible to those who pay the money for the election campaign. In addition, each house prepares its heir since childhood for that task.

A long reigning monarch could give precious advises to his prime-ministers who excercise the real power.

In moment of crisis the authority of the monarch could stop any attempts to establish dictatorship of any kind (most often than not)

The disadvantages: Yes, the personality of the monarch matters. But nowadays he has few power and I believe that if he lacks the qualities for the monarch, he would be simply ignored and left in the political background. And yet, if he really creates big problems, he can simply resign and be replaced from one of his relatives. As far as Prince Charles is concerned if he continues in this way, it is easy to predict that he will be by-passed and replaced by his son.

Yes, it is true his right is inherited but there are many heads of state that do not deserve the honour to rule their country.

Republic or modern monarchy: there is not such a great difference!

As far as the monarchs of Great Britain: many of them were famous with their scandals. But none of them had ruined the country...

Rhyfelwyr

11-18-2008, 17:47

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

:bow:

CountArach

11-18-2008, 20:19

Prince Cobra

11-18-2008, 20:36

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. It is the Parliament and the Prime-Minister that rule.

Many monarchies are really democratic and liberal. You can not say that modern Spain and Great Britain are not democracies. Juan Carlos, the King of Spain, even prevented a military coup-de-etat that could have resulted in something non-democratic. I also think the monarchies are far more resistant to totalitarian regimes than the others.

CountArach

11-18-2008, 20:45

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. Many monarchies are far more liberal and democratic in the true sense of the word than many states ruled by presidents.
If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

Rhyfelwyr

11-18-2008, 20:49

A democracy in the true sense of the word would be mob-rule. A dictatorship of the proletariat. :beam:

Prince Cobra

11-18-2008, 20:52

If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

Democracy is a compromise.

There is no absolute democracy.

Do you really think that the politicians only serve the common voters and not those who pay the money for their campaigns?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-18-2008, 21:47

except that it would be marginally cheaper

It is my understanding that in my country we pay more for our President than many countries do for their monarchies. There was an excellent link at the Paradox Forum, but I believe I have forgotten it.

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

In Germany we don't really vote for our President either, so that is a moot point. Secondly, monarchy is not incompatible with democracy - it can even safeguard it.

CountArach

11-19-2008, 09:56

Do you really think that the politicians only serve the common voters and not those who pay the money for their campaigns?
That's why I would ban donations :wink:

In Germany we don't really vote for our President either, so that is a moot point.
Well maybe you should :idea:

Secondly, monarchy is not incompatible with democracy - it can even safeguard it.
I sense a Franco moment coming on...

naut

11-19-2008, 12:47

Britain is an unconstitutional monarchy. Most people think the House of Commons rules. But, in fact every bill passed by the House of Commons must be signed by the monarch before it becomes law.
Let me channel my inner Tribsy :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes they have to sign it. But, the second part of your statement is bollox, they have no say in the matter, if the don't sign it they're out on their :daisy:.

Well maybe you should :idea:
Why bother? If they have no power at all, why hold votes for them. Sounds like a waste of time, a bundle of red tape and a whole lot of bureaucracy. If you don't have a Monarchy why the hell have a equivalent figurehead position at all?

And I've never understood all the beef about the Monarchy coming from Australia. We, do after all get a holiday out of it, something they don't get in the UK after all.

CountArach

11-19-2008, 13:02

And I've never understood all the beef about the Monarchy coming from Australia. We, do after all get a holiday out of it, something they don't get in the UK after all.
The Australian way of life dictates that we would probably make up a new Public Holiday.

Sir Moody

11-19-2008, 13:57

Seamus Fermanagh

11-19-2008, 20:51

To be honest I dont understand what is wrong with the idea of a vocal Monarch - im all for a King/Queen who states and discusses their opinion - so long as they dont take their opinion and uses what little power they have left to force it on Parliment.

Sir M:

Good to see you back! :yes:

Now, go to the Gameroom, sign up for GH's Pirate ship, and tell him I sent you.

:yes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-20-2008, 01:13

Why bother? If they have no power at all, why hold votes for them. Sounds like a waste of time, a bundle of red tape and a whole lot of bureaucracy. If you don't have a Monarchy why the hell have a equivalent figurehead position at all?

:yes:

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.

CountArach

11-20-2008, 03:27

:yes:

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.
That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

ICantSpellDawg

11-20-2008, 03:36

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-20-2008, 03:44

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.

Incongruous

11-20-2008, 06:03

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

Oh please! The Drama!

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.

Incongruous

11-20-2008, 06:04

Royalty should be elected in the UK or dissolved. They could use a "King" as a traditional figurehead or Cultural Representative like President or Chancellor.

"Born into it" is simply not good enough anymore.

Landmarks would have the allure with or without Royals.

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

ICantSpellDawg

11-20-2008, 06:44

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

Okay

rory_20_uk

11-20-2008, 12:52

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

~:smoking:

JR-

11-20-2008, 13:13

our system may indeed be an anachronism, but it works, and the test for whether change should be instituted is whether it would actually make things better.

Banquo's Ghost

11-20-2008, 13:13

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

Might be worth looking at that track record over more than just the current generation, don't you think? Since, you know, heredity is important in selection here.

Elizabeth II - Exceptional
George VI - Decent

(Note, both of the above were by accident, and not due to inherit because of:)

Edward VIII - Coward who shirked his responsibility
George V - Coward and brute
Edward VII - Drunkard and rake who would have made President Clinton blush
Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years
William IV - Decent sort, responsible for ten illegitimate children but no legal issue
George IV - Drunk, crook, gambler, rake, opium addict
George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

In the same time line, there were some pretty outstanding Presidents of the United States, and some equally outstanding Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

And whilst the recent two, favoured by the abdication, have been Good Monarchs, the whole point of this thread was the dread in which Charles' accession is held by a substantial part of the populace.

Kings make for great entertainment, but not much of a system of government.

CountArach

11-20-2008, 13:19

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.
How about my freedom from Tyrrany? My freedom to elect my own leaders?

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.
The Commons don't care about Freedom - point me to where I said that and I shall correct it. Oh wait, I didn't!

Simply because elected officials don't care about us doesn't mean we should try to:
1. Scrap the system
2. Reform the system

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.
Then why haven't they done that already? Because they have no power! Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

InsaneApache

11-20-2008, 13:33

Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

She looks a lot better on postage stamps than Pa McBroon. :laugh4:

Sir Moody

11-20-2008, 13:43

Actually the King/Queen can reject a PM and if they really wanted too they could dissolve Parliment which does put a check and balance on the Commons and the PM.

The King/Queen is apart from the powers above just the cerimonial head of state - the PM holds most of the power and last time i checked we do elect them so saying we are not "democratic" is somewhat a leap.

The Monarchs powers are layed out in a number of documents and barring millitary coup they wouldnt be able to gain anymore without the commons support.

What we REALLY need in the UK is a single written Consitution defining the Monarchs and the Houses roles and the rights of the people as we currently are stuck with an emalguration of numerous court rullings/treaties.

Sir Moody

11-20-2008, 13:46

Sir M:

Good to see you back! :yes:

Now, go to the Gameroom, sign up for GH's Pirate ship, and tell him I sent you.

:yes:

who says i havent been here all along?

/hides behind his cape and moves back into the shadows laughing manically

:evilgrin:

naut

11-20-2008, 15:58

Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years
Alfred was a smart bloke though. Notably his idea for the Great Exhibition, advocating the views of Charles Darwin and setting the Monarchy up to be above politics.

Edit:

Then why haven't they done that already? Because they have no power! Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?
No offence intended here. But, the main reason is that the UK actually has a history, or at least an interesting one, and the Monarchy helps symbolise that and put it into more tangible terms.

InsaneApache

11-20-2008, 18:02

You meant Albert.

Strike For The South

11-20-2008, 20:07

George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

You give the man to much credit.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-20-2008, 22:37

How about my freedom from Tyrrany?

Last I checked, no monarch in the West is a tyrant, or has been for quite a long time.

My freedom to elect my own leaders?

As I said, here we don't anyways. Besides, the monarch doesn't have much power.

JR-

11-21-2008, 00:13

That's why I would ban donations :wink:

i would always support any ban on state funding of political parties, they exists with the support of the electorate or the come to believe they are a class above.

Incongruous

11-21-2008, 03:34

The Commons don't care about Freedom - point me to where I said that and I shall correct it. Oh wait, I didn't!

You are saying that the Monarch must go because you seem to harbour some notion that the Monarchy impedes my personal freedoms, well it does not. The elected part of our government does not care about how many freedoms its destroys, yet you seem to wish to give them more power, by scrapping the Monarchy.

Reform? Reform to what? Reform for the sake of reform is bollocks, high minded Republicanism is also bollocks, because it leads to exactly the same thing, the concentration of power to a limited section of society.

Look at the U.S.A.

You should fear politicians mor than anything else in the world, including constitutional monarchs.

Strike For The South

11-21-2008, 03:37

Reform? Reform to what? Reform for the sake of reform is bollocks, high minded Republicanism is also bollocks, because it leads to exactly the same thing, the concentration of power to a limited section of society.

Look at the U.S.A.

Not if you do it right. A monarchy is an intolabre from of aristocracy.

Incongruous

11-21-2008, 03:39

Not if you do it right. A monarchy is an intolabre from of aristocracy.

God, more high minded Rupublicanism, what is so inherently great about a Republic?
Sod all.

Intolerable? In an absolute form, but in a proper constitutional form it is most certainly not.

Strike For The South

11-21-2008, 03:49

God, more high minded Rupublicanism, what is so inherently great about a Republic?
Sod all.

Intolerable? In an absolute form, but in a proper constitutional form it is most certainly not.

I will not have some inbred elitist be born with the "right" to rule my country. I would rather elect the inbred elitist!

Ignoramus

11-21-2008, 04:04

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2008, 05:34

Why do you think monarchy was so successful throughout history? Because when it came down to the crunch there was always an undisputed leader. Almost all of the conflicts in the Middle Ages were not because no one knew who the rightful heir was, but because there was a chance they could usurp the throne.

And how does getting voted in by 50% of the people give you a right to rule the entire nation. That's rather a poor mandate. For although half the country wants you, the other half don't.

Actually, the Presidents in 1912, 1968, 1992, 1996, & 2000 were all elected with LESS than 50% of the popular vote supporting their candidacies. Happens any time we get a semi-meaningful 3rd party candidate.

Strike:

Remember, the English have no Constitution that acknowledges and guarantees their individual rights. Its more of a traditional acretion process there, as there is no legal "trump card" as we have. The development of a limited monarchy was, however, paid for in blood -- so they too take their freedoms pretty seriously.

CountArach

11-21-2008, 05:51

I will not have some inbred elitist be born with the "right" to rule my country. I would rather elect the inbred elitist!
Damn right.

naut

11-21-2008, 08:15

You meant Albert.
Woops, yes I did. Although Alfred was pretty damn good too.

Banquo's Ghost

11-21-2008, 08:28

rory_20_uk

11-21-2008, 11:31

I imagine you are aware how wrong this is?

I take it you spotted the name?

~:smoking:

Incongruous

11-21-2008, 23:31

I will not have some inbred elitist be born with the "right" to rule my country. I would rather elect the inbred elitist!

Hahaha, a little late for that kind of sentiment my friend.

Rhyfelwyr

11-21-2008, 23:46

The US constitution is great in theory. However, as with other radical theories such as communism, it simply does not translate effectively into practice. Freedom is directly proportional to equality, and since the US constitution is based on the belief that all men are created equal, the theory is flawed. And since inequality breeds inequality, you get to the point where the US is today, and eventually to either some form of tyranny, or more likely oligarchy. The balance within government is checked, but the balance within society is not. Government and society must both have balance before a constitution can bring stablity and ensure freedom.

Nonetheless, I do not support a monarchy or hereditary government of any form, simply because some monarchs will be so incompetent that their stupidity outweights the benefits that their freedom from the need to please an electorate brings.

Papewaio

11-25-2008, 04:38

Remember, the English have no Constitution that acknowledges and guarantees their individual rights. Its more of a traditional acretion process there, as there is no legal "trump card" as we have. The development of a limited monarchy was, however, paid for in blood -- so they too take their freedoms pretty seriously.

And the Magna Carta?

Ignoramus

11-25-2008, 11:39

While I'm quite happy to have opinions or views ridiculed, I do not appreciate that last post by rory. Attack the view not the person.

Putting that aside, I'll willingly defended the values of a monarch(aristocratic or constitutional) over a republic. A monarchy, properly constrained, can have very good benefits for a country.

CountArach

11-25-2008, 13:16

Putting that aside, I'll willingly defended the values of a monarch(aristocratic or constitutional) over a republic. A monarchy, properly constrained, can have very good benefits for a country.
Could you care to name one benefit that a Republic could not provide?

JR-

11-25-2008, 13:56

it's not that it can be proven to be quantifiably better of worse, we cannot use a computer model to assess how and 19th century republican Britian worked out for the average punter in the 21st century.

The point is that Britain has a system that has worked very well, and certainly no one has persuaded me that going Republican now will improve anybodies life in any way at all.

Tinker if there is a problem, not because you are progessively inclined by nature, because the results when it goes wrong are usually catastrophic.

Sir Moody

11-25-2008, 14:32

I agree entirely theres no need to fix it if it isnt broke.

And the Magna Carta?

Is one of a number of documents/rulings that make up the definition of the peoples rights in this country - that is one change we do need - to do away with all the documents like the Magna Carta and create a single constitution. We probably wont tho as it would hinder the Commons in reducing our personal freedoms.

InsaneApache

11-25-2008, 17:07

Can you imagine any of the current tossers in power today coming up with anything that isn't cack-handed? :inquisitive:

They wouldn't know what to do with a principle if they found one. :shame:

rory_20_uk

11-25-2008, 22:07

I agree entirely theres no need to fix it if it isnt broke.

Is one of a number of documents/rulings that make up the definition of the peoples rights in this country - that is one change we do need - to do away with all the documents like the Magna Carta and create a single constitution. We probably wont tho as it would hinder the Commons in reducing our personal freedoms.

Rubbish. They'd be tinkering with it, or "interpreting" it as soon as the ink was dry. Does the EU function?

Look at the US second amendment. Apparently every person is a militia... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Sir Moody

11-26-2008, 01:33

True but it would be harder to manipulate loop holes - the problem with having many documents is they date back to the magna carta and unless specifically stated otherwise the rules set down in them still apply - including some that contradict or make no sense in a modern world - the US constitution (which could use some clarifying in places) is at least a starting point to fall back on - we cant really do that

as for a EU constitution sure the EU, if it is a political body, should have one - the one they suggested however was long and pointless (which i suppose is the way the EU is managed in general)

Incongruous

11-26-2008, 01:45

Can you imagine any of the current tossers in power today coming up with anything that isn't cack-handed? :inquisitive:

They wouldn't know what to do with a principle if they found one. :shame:

Which is why leaving evrything up to those "men" in the Commons is a big mistake, but one which we are willing to let them make.

Oh and they would probably detain the principle without charge.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-26-2008, 05:36

Look at the US second amendment. Apparently every person is a militia... :inquisitive:

Actually, though meant tongue-in-cheek, I think its not a bad way to describe it.

Rory:

Given your propensity for tongue-in-cheek commentary, does medicine offer any corrective procedures if your tongue locks up while so engaged? :devilish: