View Full Version : Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?
Divinus Arma
11-28-2005, 22:27
If you live in Great Britain, do you prefer a Republic or a constitutional monarchy as it is now?
Why?
Reverend Joe
11-28-2005, 22:34
Wrong forum?
Why? What other forum would it go in?
And why is everyone posting nothing but questions?
Why? What other forum would it go in?
Backroom?
:inquisitive: sniff... sniff.. politics?
To The Backroom with you!
King Henry V
11-28-2005, 23:17
I shall die defending Windsor Castle for the Queen against the onslaight of the republican hordes!:charge: But not for "Prince "I want to be your tampon" Charles.~D
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-28-2005, 23:22
The idea of a royal family with special privileges and rights before the law is totally incompatible with a free and fair state. Plus, they cost us money.
We need to get rid of the royals, ASAP.
Marcellus
11-28-2005, 23:29
The idea of a royal family with special privileges and rights before the law is totally incompatible with a free and fair state. Plus, they cost us money.
We need to get rid of the royals, ASAP.
I agree that the idea that one person should have more rights and privileges than everyone else simply because of their birth is wrong and incompatible with our society. However I am not sure of the ease with which they could be removed - the monarchy has been bound into our system for a millenium. it's annoying that we are paying for them, but we actual pay surprisingly little - about 50-ish pence per person per year.
doc_bean
11-28-2005, 23:37
I don't see how they can ever go on with King Charles and Queen Camilla (whatever her official title may be), i don't see a lot of people ready to defend THEM.
And there aren't many redeeming qualities to be found in Diana's spawn either...~:rolleyes:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-28-2005, 23:43
shocking as it would sound to anybody who really knows me .....
....I think I prefer the monarchy as it is to a republic led by President Blair (or even President Brown or Cameron in the future *shudders*).
TheSilverKnight
11-29-2005, 00:08
I quite like the monarchy is it is right now. But that may be because I am a die-hard Royalist. ~:cheers: :bow:
I don't see how they can ever go on with King Charles and Queen Camilla (whatever her official title may be), i don't see a lot of people ready to defend THEM.
And there aren't many redeeming qualities to be found in Diana's spawn either...~:rolleyes:
Like Phil the Greek she will only ever be the Princess Consort. I don't mind Charles (sure he's a nob but he deserves a chance), William is going to be the savior of the monarchy.
I'm quite happy to let them be. I don't even mind Charlie that much, but then being Head of State is about the role not the personality. In my youth I was rather anti-monarchist (ie disliked the monarchy without proposing any real alternative) as so many are. Now I'm happier to have them than not. Sure they cost money but it is nice to have one area of government, however limited, free from inter-party bickering. Plus if you think that getting rid of them would mean lower taxes or more efficient government spending then you are deluding yourself. That said if push came to shove I would probably be a Roundhead rather than a Cavalier though.
Incongruous
11-29-2005, 02:09
Bring 'em all down, Norman/German gits! We should replace them witha true English Monarch who shares his peoples qualities!
Hmmmm... Bruce Dickinson?
The idea of a royal family with special privileges and rights before the law is totally incompatible with a free and fair state. Plus, they cost us money.
We need to get rid of the royals, ASAP.
You also forgot the whole religious clap trap they bring with them but apart from that I whole heartedly agree with your statement.
Bring 'em all down, Norman/German gits! We should replace them witha true English Monarch who shares his peoples qualities!
Hmmmm... Bruce Dickinson?
Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!
:D
Strike For The South
11-29-2005, 02:58
Why you hatin on the monarchs JAG? There so cute (In an inbred sorta way.) GOD SAVE THE QUEEN:charge:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-29-2005, 02:59
so JAG would accept a heavy metal monarchy...
...interesting
so JAG would accept a heavy metal monarchy...
...interesting
As long as it included my favourites ;)
I dislike the Monarchy because it is inherently unjust and a stain on our country / any country.
Soulforged
11-29-2005, 04:56
Great Britain is not a monarchy, nor a democracy. As all those countries calling for democracy they're under the rule of a procedimental democracy, but the so called "royal family" has practically no real power, so it's not a monarchy. It's as any other procedimental democracy, only that not only models can win their bread of every day (and plasma television) with their genes, but also you can live well without doing absolutely nothing and protected by the shadow of God....ooooooooo ~:shock: :scared:
English assassin
11-29-2005, 10:28
Bruce for King !
The reason we ought to get rid of them is all the clap trap they bring in their wake, Lords and ladies and sirs and people generally thinking they are better than everyone else not because of anything they have done but because they are related to a gang of organised criminals in the 13th century. And as for them being modernised, my Right Royal Backside they are, Charlie "why don't people know their place any more" Windsor has views that would embarrass the Monday Club.
The only thing is, if we get rid of them we are going to be in trouble with naming things, eg the Royal Mail will just be "Mail", the RAF will be AF and you have to admit whereas HMS Invincible sounds badass, S Invincible sounds silly. So we would have to sort out something on that front before giving Charlie his marching orders. Maybe we could jkeep the monarchy but declare it vacant, and stick a great big sword through a stone and say whoever pulls it out can be king, it worked quite well last time.
And in the mean time Bruce can be Regent.
Bha! Monarchy belongs in history books and fairytales.
The only reason to support monarchy would be if the monarch would be elected by the people. :bow:
InsaneApache
11-29-2005, 10:42
hmmm...I too would rather be a roundhead than a cavalier, but the thought of a politician being head of state fills me with horror. Just look at our former colonies to see the calibre of elected heads of state........ *shivers with horror*
Prez Bliar would be a dangerous move ... he's bad enough now, and he supposed to be accountable to Parliament....well that's the theory. Then again the 'Firm' have no real power.....a figurehead that's all they are, so I say keep the Sax-Coberg-Gothas, albeit with reservations.
English assassin
11-29-2005, 10:54
The only reason to support monarchy would be if the monarch would be elected by the people.
You mean a sort of King Idol?
Its a thought.
el_slapper
11-29-2005, 11:18
French president already is a kind of elected king, & it does not work as well as it used to do ~:mecry: . Plus french presidency does cost twice what English monarchy does cost.
Plus the tourism income generated by a monarchy is much higher. The problem we have in France is that noone is qualified for the throne(or maybe too much think they are)
Snowhobbit
11-29-2005, 11:42
Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
Time for a new revolution I say :knight:
You mean a sort of King Idol?
Its a thought.
Well we had a debate in sweden over the Monarchy issue. (It comes back from time to time when our king does something stupid, as he does that on a regular basis).
Anyway, one of the options presented here in Sweden was that the king would remain a powerless propaganda tool but would be elected by the people.
Odds are that our current king would be elected in such a scenario and that would mean that he atleast would be a "king of the people".
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-29-2005, 11:49
Perhaps we could have a king/queen elected by lottery? Everyone gets a number, and if yours come up you get to be monarch for a year.
On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible, and possibly something like the National Mail. Or we could go back to Consignia for that last ~;)
Somebody Else
11-29-2005, 11:54
Consider renaming ships from HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) to BS (British Ship).
Although, I have to say - keep the Royals - they're pretty harmless, bring in over a billion pounds in tourism a year and, when they've got their act together, act as marvelous special envoys, nothing quite impresses the natives like a title.
Besides, getting rid of them would be surrendering to mediocrity, conforming to the rest of the world. No thanks.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-29-2005, 11:58
bring in over a billion pounds in tourism a year
I'm pretty sure that that's mostly the buildings they're squatting in.
Mouzafphaerre
11-29-2005, 12:37
.
Interesting thing. I remember reading about a poll in the paper in my childhood, that is early 80's like '83 maybe; the monarchy had 99.7% (or 97.9%) public support.
Hmm, I would support it I guess. :coffeenews:
.
English assassin
11-29-2005, 13:00
On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible
Umm, but BKS, we wouldn't BE the United Kingdom would we? We'd be the United,er, damn, nations has gone, states has gone er, Countries? UC. Hmm. The Yew See. Not so good.
Maybe we should rebrand. If we called ourselves Narnia we'd do quite well out of tourism plus we've already got lions and unicorns everywhere so it would be quite cheap..
TonkaToys
11-29-2005, 14:51
Consider renaming ships from HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) to BS (British Ship).
Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".
Besides, getting rid of them would be surrendering to mediocrity, conforming to the rest of the world. No thanks.
Nice one.
Long live the Queen.
:charge:
Spetulhu
11-29-2005, 15:15
Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
What's so extremely unjust about it? Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob. The Queen can't invade countries, it's Bliar who handles that.
Perhaps the injustice you see is only that you're not the one getting paid to appear in public? ~;)
Snowhobbit
11-29-2005, 15:49
The injustice is that he as is born with privilegies that no one else can have, there's something so 18th century about it ~;p
English assassin
11-29-2005, 15:53
Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob.
I bet he'd like to though. Or have them horsewhipped at least. Show the oiks their place.
There must be someone more useless and plain wrong headed than Charlie (Hey, listen to my laughably ill informed opinions because I'm the Prince of Wales) but I can't think who right now.
Edit: Prince Edward of course. D'oh.
Somebody Else
11-29-2005, 16:37
Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".
You noticed that did you?
I'm pretty sure that that's mostly the buildings they're squatting in.
Well, yes - in part. But would those buildings be worth visiting without the knowledge that the reigning monarchy live in them? After all, how many people go to see Buckingham Palace compared to going to see say... Caernarvon? They're both lovely historic sites, one just happens to be the home of the Queen.
What would happen to all those chaps in busbies? The changing of the guard would likewise go, but of course, no-one's ever interested in that...
Most importantly, that fantastic bar-room antic, 'saving the Queen' would no longer be applicable (for those who don't know - dropping a coin in a person's drink results in said person having to save the Queen from drowning by downing said drink ASAP).
English assassin
11-29-2005, 17:01
Most importantly, that fantastic bar-room antic, 'saving the Queen' would no longer be applicable (for those who don't know - dropping a coin in a person's drink results in said person having to save the Queen from drowning by downing said drink ASAP).
No it wouldn't. I play this game already, and its called Freddie Fivepence. You lob 5 p into the victim's drink and all shout "he's drowning, he's drowning, Freddie Fivepence is drowning" then the victim has to save Freddie by necking it.
If we shouted Save the Queen no one would have the faintest idea what was going on and Her Maj would meet a beery end. Still, not a bad way to go.
Somebody Else
11-29-2005, 17:24
No it wouldn't. I play this game already, and its called Freddie Fivepence. You lob 5 p into the victim's drink and all shout "he's drowning, he's drowning, Freddie Fivepence is drowning" then the victim has to save Freddie by necking it.
If we shouted Save the Queen no one would have the faintest idea what was going on and Her Maj would meet a beery end. Still, not a bad way to go.
Ah, but there are nuances to 'saving the Queen'. Firstly, the victim does get to keep the coin - so depending on circumstances, one could be particularly harsh (or if the drink is already considerably low) and chuck in a mere penny, a 50p is considered gentlemanly. Anything more would only occur if a) generosity was a bit too prevalent, b) the victim was slightly low on funds - a pound would allow another drink to be bought.
Plus, everyone in my bar's sworn an oath, it's our duty to down pints!
I would have to say away with the royals. The Royals are not what makes Britain Britain. They serve NO purpose anymore, and they are given rights and priviledges no-one else has purely because they exist. Just for being born. Not to mention they ruin good TV with their silly weddings and stupid events. I would vote with getting rid of the Royals, and I wouldn't stick out my neck to save them. I have a profound hatred for the "hanger-onner royals".
"Hey look, I'm the Queen's granddaughter's husband's cousin's brother-in-law! Can I have some free money now?"
It's not really as severe as that but there are a lot of pointless lords not working a day in their lives, and mooching off my money. Not to mention they own a LOT of land which SHOULD belong to the state. They're supposed to uphold the Church of England faith but ruddy Prince Charles is in no way a real christian. I think the royals have grown too accustomed to their "rights", and have forgotten their responsibilities.
GiantMonkeyMan
11-29-2005, 20:20
you can't say they are born into a privaliged family (well you could) because Bill Gates' family is going to be just as rich (if not richer?).... i say keep the royals so we do not fall into the trap of having another person in charge who gets just as big a house and tax benefits (eg presidents).... Long Live The Queen (and down with the french :hide: )
Actually, Bill Gates isn't giving any of his money to his children to my knowledge (If I am incorrect, please correct me ;))
Maybe we should rebrand. If we called ourselves Narnia we'd do quite well out of tourism plus we've already got lions and unicorns everywhere so it would be quite cheap..
It's pure genius. The marketing for the tourism adverts basically write themselves.
Duke Malcolm
11-29-2005, 21:18
God Save the Queen!
I too shall defend Her Brittanic Majesty, and her heirs and successors, even HRH Prince Charles, who has made a few good points in the past...
And what is all this clap trap about Her Majesty costing the British people money? The Crown Estates, Her Majesty's private property, earns about £175 million a year. All of this money goes to the Government. Her Majesty and their Royal Highnesses cost the British Taxpayer much less than £175 million. Hence, Her Majesty provides money for the british people reaching into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum.
And besides, it would be an awful lot of hassle to abolish the monarchy. Consult the British Commonwealth, consult each area of the UK (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) separately, deciding on a new name...
Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!
:D
Oh, please, not again. We'd barely shaken off the hair metal of the 80's in time to get blasted with this nu-metal garbage, and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.
rasoforos
11-29-2005, 22:09
Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!
:D
Yeah Bruce would be cool!
Seriously:
I have to agree with Jag. I dislike monarchies. I cant understand why taxpayers have to pay good money so a selected few wont have to even bother to scratch their own arse. Its just silly and it doesnt do justice to the country.
And they are not even British anyway. So its not like they are guardians of any great tradition...
Jokingly:
American dream ' Through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve prosperity no matter his race/sex/colour is '
British dream ' As long as you are a really lucky (mostly) German lady, you can really strike gold...and the hell with hard work '
Duke Malcolm
11-29-2005, 22:20
I have to agree with Jag. I dislike monarchies. I cant understand why taxpayers have to pay good money so a selected few wont have to even bother to scratch their own arse. Its just silly and it doesnt do justice to the country.
As previously:
The Crown Estates, Her Majesty's private property, earns about £175 million a year. All of this money goes to the Government. Her Majesty and their Royal Highnesses cost the British Taxpayer much less than £175 million. Hence, Her Majesty provides money for the british people reaching into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum.
And they are not even British anyway. So its not like they are guardians of any great tradition...
They have been of born in this country since Queen Victoria (her children, not herself). If someones family is resident in a country for over 150 years, they are generally considered to be of that country
rasoforos
11-29-2005, 22:29
They have been of born in this country since Queen Victoria (her children, not herself). If someones family is resident in a country for over 150 years, they are generally considered to be of that country
Yep, and this is fine for you and me. I am foreign myself but my kids wont be.
My point is that, if there was any potential 'tradition value' it would need the royal family to be the the descentants of a dynasty that spans for centuries...and not a bunch of interbred mostly-germans
As tradition goes they are more akin to bierwurst than to the Excalibur ~:)
Duke Malcolm
11-29-2005, 22:36
Generally the spouses of the kings have been British. Queen Victoria and King George I and William and Anne were, I believe, the last truely foreign monarchs of the nation.
Productivity
11-30-2005, 02:14
On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible, and possibly something like the National Mail. Or we could go back to Consignia for that last ~;)
EDIT: EA Beat me
Seamus Fermanagh
11-30-2005, 05:09
I'm a yank of Irish (no traditional reverence for the English monarchy) and Polish (actually elected their kings) descent, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but....
Practical Point:
Somebody in government has to do all of the ceremonial chores, the acceptence of letters of credence, the hand-waving appearances at new reseach hospitals, photo ops with the latest sports winners....
If you lack a ceremonial figurehead -- and the practical power of the monarchy is about as limited as it can get short of abolishing the monarchy or repeating the Charles I solution -- then you end up ladling all this crap work on top of the real work of your executive. Believe me, that stuff certainly takes up way too much of the time of a U.S. President.
Impractical Point:
If you do scrap the royals, maybe the ships could all be styled "Prime Minister's Ship Insert Name" -- after all, they're traditionally thought of as female.~D
English assassin
11-30-2005, 10:43
and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.
I know this is off topic, but HOW can anyone call Bruce Dickinson, lead singer of iron maiden, (after the first few albums) a trendy impostor? Or Metalcore, whatever that may be, when Maiden were and remain one of the greatest NWOBHM bands? (He has got short hair now though.)
I saw their show at the Reading Festival this year and unlike some cash in come backs we could mention, cough Mötley Crüe cough, maiden have still got it.
In fact anyone who has seen Bruce giving it some with the Union Flag AND dressed as a Redcoat while singing the Trooper live knows that THIS is the man who should be the UK's figurehead on the world stage.
Its all decided. Lock teh thread.
el_slapper
11-30-2005, 10:54
(.../...) (and down with the french :hide: )
Chaaaaaaaaaaaaarge!!!:charge: let's not let this insult stay unpunished:duel: and this time, don't let the roastbeefs fire in first :knight:
Nah, frankly, a president/king for the decorum & a full-time man for the real power, whatever the name of its function, THAT is good.
thrashaholic
11-30-2005, 11:49
The monarchy is a living embodiment of Britain's history, its traditions, its culture. To remove it would be to remove an integral connection we have with our past. To replace the Queen with a slimy politician president would be akin to knocking down stonehenge, knocking down all of our castles, knocking down our monuments and building a concrete monstrosity like a car-park in their place. We'd be waterring down our culture for no real purpose (as the anti-monarchists have readily admitted: the monarch has no real power, thus an elected president would have no need to have any power - the difference would be that we'd have to elect him/her, so they'd have political alligances, and that they wouldn't be rooted in our culture at all).
The cost arguments, in terms of money alone, are a fallacy. The real cost would be to the people of this country, and dare I say to the people of the world, as we'd have an institution so steeped intradition, a living history if you will, destroyed and replaced by a generic one-size-fits-all make-a-quick-buck psuedo-culture of rubbish television, disgusting fast-food and anonymous presidents.
The anti-monarchists arguments seem steeped in jealousy, that they can't be the monarch, and in racism, that a family have to live in this country for over 250 years to truly be British (although the Queen can, of course, trace her lineage back to Edward the Confessor, the last 'English' king, and there have been both considerable Welsh and Scottish influences on the family...). I say it's a good thing the general populace can't get their hands on the role of head of state: the charisteristics of ruthlessness and deceit endemic in politicians are precisely the qualities you don't want in the head of state.
The royal family, and the aristocracy in general, may be an anachronism, but they are a charming anachronism. This reason alone justifies their existence. Now that the fuedal system has gone, they can't do any harm, only remind us of our history and what it truly means to be British.
Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
Time for a new revolution I say :knight:
Unjust system? I've managed to live my life so far without once being opressed by the monarchy. Parliament maybe but not the royals!
Mouzafphaerre
11-30-2005, 14:45
The monarchy is a living embodiment of Britain's history, its traditions, its culture. To remove it would be to remove an integral connection we have with our past. To replace the Queen with a slimy politician president would be akin to knocking down stonehenge, knocking down all of our castles, knocking down our monuments and building a concrete monstrosity like a car-park in their place. We'd be waterring down our culture for no real purpose (as the anti-monarchists have readily admitted: the monarch has no real power, thus an elected president would have no need to have any power - the difference would be that we'd have to elect him/her, so they'd have political alligances, and that they wouldn't be rooted in our culture at all).
The cost arguments, in terms of money alone, are a fallacy. The real cost would be to the people of this country, and dare I say to the people of the world, as we'd have an institution so steeped intradition, a living history if you will, destroyed and replaced by a generic one-size-fits-all make-a-quick-buck psuedo-culture of rubbish television, disgusting fast-food and anonymous presidents.
The anti-monarchists arguments seem steeped in jealousy, that they can't be the monarch, and in racism, that a family have to live in this country for over 250 years to truly be British (although the Queen can, of course, trace her lineage back to Edward the Confessor, the last 'English' king, and there have been both considerable Welsh and Scottish influences on the family...). I say it's a good thing the general populace can't get their hands on the role of head of state: the charisteristics of ruthlessness and deceit endemic in politicians are precisely the qualities you don't want in the head of state.
The royal family, and the aristocracy in general, may be an anachronism, but they are a charming anachronism. This reason alone justifies their existence. Now that the fuedal system has gone, they can't do any harm, only remind us of our history and what it truly means to be British.
.
:2thumbsup:
.
Snowhobbit
11-30-2005, 17:59
I refer to my previous post.
The injustice is that he as is born with privilegies that no one else can have, there's something so 18th century about it ~;p
Kralizec
11-30-2005, 18:29
If you do scrap the royals, maybe the ships could all be styled "Prime Minister's Ship Insert Name" -- after all, they're traditionally thought of as female.~D
~:joker: That's even better then British Ship
InsaneApache
11-30-2005, 20:21
well PMS Warspite sounds like the missus ~:eek: .....I'll get me coat .... :hide:
InsaneApache
11-30-2005, 20:28
Why on Earth would anybody want THIS guy to be King???????????.....~:confused: ~D ~:joker: ~:eek:
Dickinson (http://www.geocities.com/daviddickinsonshrine/clouds.html)
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-30-2005, 20:43
ah, to understand their twisted minds.....
Edit: maybe because he has the requisite fancy old stuff...
Edit: I've heard that some bloke called Paul Dianno was better though.
ShadesWolf
11-30-2005, 20:50
monarchy :bow:
Why do we need to become a republic, we are already a democracy. The Queen has no powers so leave it be. She rules in name only. How many times has she overruled government ? Never.......
Soulforged
12-01-2005, 03:04
monarchy :bow:
Why do we need to become a republic, we are already a democracy. The Queen has no powers so leave it be. She rules in name only. How many times has she overruled government ? Never.......
Sorry to interrup but I think that the real problem has to faces: 1- It proposes a formal unequality. 2- It proposes a real unequality when the royal family has to do nothing to survive while "lesser" beings have to look for a job. That alone is enough at least for me.
Incongruous
12-01-2005, 10:11
WTF someone thinks were talking about David Dickinson!
Bugger off you musical **** **** NOOOOOOOOO!
WE MEAN BRUCE DICKINSON! Paul Dianno was crap compared to Bruce, go and listen The number of the beast, The trooper and Run to the hills.
InsaneApache
12-01-2005, 10:30
Yeah that's the guy....'cheap as chips' I like his haircut it's groovy.....~:joker:
Prodigal
12-01-2005, 15:05
Looking back I have to say I have a problem with the saxons
a) for invading in the first place...Buncha pansies, they should have fought the Huns & died like men
b) for then letting a bunch of normans take over
This seems to have led to the monarchy always being made up of foreigners, (that includes Scots').
*Fun Fact* William Wallace - Wallace means Welshman
:knight:
Tom Jones would make a better king than Bruce imnsho :bow:
Duke Malcolm
12-01-2005, 20:11
In the UK, the Scots aren't foreigners, but are a contingent of the UK.
Secondly, Wallace may mean Welshman, but that doesn't mean Sir William Wallace was Welsh.
Thirdly, Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce were unrelated/
I like the fact that a Greek claims his children will be British because they will be born here yet argues that the Queen is German. Ah the irony!
As for the equality issue I say GAH! There are plenty of people with inherited wealth and I don't ask for some of theirs. Bringing people down in life is the worst way to achieve equality IMO. So when we all sit in our government tenements waiting months for our government car we can look at the Windsors in the flat next door and be happy? GAH again.
Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
ShadesWolf
12-01-2005, 20:44
1- It proposes a formal unequality. 2- It proposes a real unequality when the royal family has to do nothing to survive while "lesser" beings have to look for a job. That alone is enough at least for me.
Whats that got to do with monarchy ?
Dont governments propose formal unequality ?
and as for the other point ~:joker: Plenty of people dont have to work. So I see that this is an invalid point !
If you are trying to drag the rich man poor man thing into this thats a different discussion. Plenty of people have made money in one generation that then means future generations dont need to work. Thats capitalism.
Marcellus
12-02-2005, 00:42
I'm sure there are lots of tourists in France who, looking at Paris from the top of the Eiffel tower, think, "well, it's good, but it would be so much better with a monarchy'.
(C) Someone who isn't me
Oh, please, not again. We'd barely shaken off the hair metal of the 80's in time to get blasted with this nu-metal garbage, and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.
Oi, oi, oi! I shall refer you to EA for the rebuttal and I shall state that there is nothing wrong with metalcore! You saying Sevenfold are crap? They might be right wing ****s but they make damn fine music.
Soulforged
12-02-2005, 02:17
Whats that got to do with monarchy ?
Dont governments propose formal unequality ?Yes I know if you read my previous posts you'll see that I didn't say that Britain was a monarchy.
and as for the other point ~:joker: Plenty of people dont have to work. So I see that this is an invalid point !No it's not. Formally they're above all other man. The fact that they've the possibility to survive without even adding anything useful to society is secondary to my point primarily because that kind of parasite appears in every country in various forms, Maradona for example.
If you are trying to drag the rich man poor man thing into this thats a different discussion. Plenty of people have made money in one generation that then means future generations dont need to work. Thats capitalism.Exactly, I've seen a curious quote from one of the members that appears ironic really now that you said this...~:joker:
Incongruous
12-02-2005, 07:06
I am Bruce the First and I say thus proclaim!
TWO MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT!
RUN TO THE HILLS! RUN FOR YOURE LIVES!
SIX! SIX SIX! THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST!
I also proclaim that New matal sucks big ones, as do all the other sello out mainstream muthas!
oh and Opeth rocks! :hide:
InsaneApache
12-02-2005, 10:38
I am Bruce the First and I say thus proclaim!
Good game, good game....nice to see you, to see you nice....higher or lower?...
Yes good choice I love Brucie.
https://img459.imageshack.us/img459/2685/gg061qx.th.jpg (https://img459.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gg061qx.jpg)
el_slapper
12-02-2005, 13:21
I'm sure there are lots of tourists in France who, looking at Paris from the top of the Eiffel tower, think, "well, it's good, but it would be so much better with a monarchy'.
(C) Someone who isn't me
They would not necessary think it, but they'd act like if. Would be one more reason to visit our beautiful & unequaled nation~D . Who would go to London without the Queen????? ~:joker:
Spetulhu
12-02-2005, 15:24
I'm sure there are lots of tourists in France who, looking at Paris from the top of the Eiffel tower, think, "well, it's good, but it would be so much better with a monarchy'.
Your punch-line leaves much to be desired. If you had ended the joke with "so much better without the French" you'd have a proper anti-French joke. ~:joker:
Sorry, it was my first thought when I saw that sentence. Not a terribly funny joke, but as French-bashing it's quite good. :hide:
Society needs such fundamental reform that the royal family become minor details in comparason.
Saying that, they should be hung from the gates of Buckingham palace. I think if you are going to be a royal you should accept that public disgrace and an ignominous lynching are all a part of the bargain.
Prodigal
12-02-2005, 17:06
In the UK, the Scots aren't foreigners, but are a contingent of the UK.
Secondly, Wallace may mean Welshman, but that doesn't mean Sir William Wallace was Welsh.
Thirdly, Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce were unrelated/
HAHA! A bite! ~D
I was thinking James I rather than ol' Brucey boy...And I'm thinking of a word ~:wacko: Oh yes! PICT :eyebrows: That's the one, remeber the Irish settlers who called themselves scots? Invited all the pictish kings to one place & killed them all?
Now (*thinks*) why would an Irishman who settled in "scotland" call himself Welshman...hhhhmmmm.
So you see my point? Unless James I happened to be a pict, (which would be pretty bloody unlikely considering what happened to all the pictish kings), then he was a scot, (which means that really he was originally irish), & he then became king of england, but, I'm pretty sure that the natives didn't call the place England (or anything remotly close to that), prior to an invasion of saxons, who in turn were conquered by a bunch of nordic refugee's :viking: who had invaded part of gaul or france or whatever.
So that sums up my thoughts on the current monarchy, & if you think I'm bitter about this don't even get me started about the italians ~;)
Prodigal
12-02-2005, 17:11
They would not necessary think it, but they'd act like if. Would be one more reason to visit our beautiful & unequaled nation~D . Who would go to London without the Queen????? ~:joker:
If this gets onto how much better the weather is in Paris I'd like to remind you that London, Paris & Moscow are all pretty much lvl pegging in terms of how far north they are...And that gulf stream thing hasn't really kicked in fully yet so thats not a good enough counter ~:cheers:
Sorry for 2 posts, but I really can't be bothered making multiple quotes in one post at the moment
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 17:51
A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity. As it stands the royalty in both Britain and Holland are almost an afterthought, with no real purpose or use; I'm not saying they should have actual powers over government, but they need to be seen. It's all good and well having a monarchy that's supposed to be closer to the people, but that entirely defeats the point: royalty has to be dignified, and this isn't the case at the moment. A monarch is the ideal representative of a nation and should be used more for that purpose both nationally and internationally.
So in short, a monarchy is fine by me as long as it serves some purpose; it has to be used for what it's good at. Ceremony should be increased, rather than holing them up in palaces for months on end.
What certainly does need to be regulated is strictly seperating the real royal family (husband, wife, kids) from the many irrelevant family members, who are frequently embarrassments and a thorough waste of space.
doc_bean
12-02-2005, 18:12
What certainly does need to be regulated is strictly seperating the real royal family (husband, wife, kids) from the many irrelevant family members, who are frequently embarrassments and a thorough waste of space.
I think we recently stopped paying those ~:cheers:
ShadesWolf
12-02-2005, 18:20
Saying that, they should be hung from the gates of Buckingham palace. I think if you are going to be a royal you should accept that public disgrace and an ignominous lynching are all a part of the bargain.
Off with his head :charge:
Prodigal
12-02-2005, 20:16
A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity.
Does Princess Beatrice, of that scandy country, in a swimsuit count as a national identity? If it does, then I'm movin' ~:eek:
Duke Malcolm
12-02-2005, 21:09
HAHA! A bite! ~D
I was thinking James I rather than ol' Brucey boy...And I'm thinking of a word ~:wacko: Oh yes! PICT :eyebrows: That's the one, remeber the Irish settlers who called themselves scots? Invited all the pictish kings to one place & killed them all?
The Kings of the Scots of Dalriada had a claim on the throne of the Picts, wince King Kenneth MacAlpin being the Grandson of a Pictish King. He just enforced his claim by eradicating the Pictish Army
Now (*thinks*) why would an Irishman who settled in "scotland" call himself Welshman...hhhhmmmm.
The people of South-West modern Scotland were British people, i.e. almost Welsh. In Wallace's time this land had been part of Scotland for almost 3 centuries, he was Scottish, I assure you
So you see my point? Unless James I happened to be a pict, (which would be pretty bloody unlikely considering what happened to all the pictish kings), then he was a scot, (which means that really he was originally irish), & he then became king of england, but, I'm pretty sure that the natives didn't call the place England (or anything remotly close to that), prior to an invasion of saxons, who in turn were conquered by a bunch of nordic refugee's :viking: who had invaded part of gaul or france or whatever.
I don't quite see your point, no...
King James VI & I was directly descended from King Kenneth MacAlpin, who was from both Pictish and Scottish stock.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 01:28
A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity. As it stands the royalty in both Britain and Holland are almost an afterthought, with no real purpose or use; I'm not saying they should have actual powers over government, but they need to be seen. It's all good and well having a monarchy that's supposed to be closer to the people, but that entirely defeats the point: royalty has to be dignified, and this isn't the case at the moment. A monarch is the ideal representative of a nation and should be used more for that purpose both nationally and internationally.If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-03-2005, 01:36
Malcolm,
Strathclyde was not part of Scotland until the early 11th century.
The Later 11th century saw its territory split between Scotland and England.
Welsh names were still commonly recorded in southern Scotland during the 12th century (Edit:actually, probably longer, I just don't have any other examples lying around).
The last time that the charters of the kings of Scotland specifically mentioned the Welsh of the kingdom was in the 12th century (edit: it was during the reign of William the Lion so may have been in the early 13th century).
The veneration of Welsh saints continued on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border for a long time (Edit:I'm guessing until the reformation).
I reckon William Wallace probably had a fair idea of his heritage.
Edit: P.S. I just mentioned Paul Dianno to wind up the hardcore Bruce-ites.
If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.
Ah that must be why Argentinia is such a world power! That whole statement is nonsense. Is a monarch more fictional than a president? Tradition is a stablising factor in society.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 05:40
Ah that must be why Argentinia is such a world power! That whole statement is nonsense. Is a monarch more fictional than a president? Tradition is a stablising factor in society.
You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.
Side note: When was the last time you came here?~:confused:
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.~;)
Geoffrey S
12-03-2005, 12:51
If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.
That's important; but for people to identify with their nation something tangible is necessary, and a royal family is ideal for that purpose. Strangely enough, ceremony is something most European nations with their long and rich history lack, whilst there is comparatively quite a lot of it in the relative newcomer the US.
Just A Girl
12-03-2005, 12:58
Never liked the royals Before,
But since tony blair arived with His I love bush campaign.
I say
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.
ABOLISH UK DEMOCRACY.
"RULE BRITANIA BRITANIA RULES THE WAVES BRITAIN NEVER NEVER EVER SHAL BE SLAVES!! RULE...."
Duke Malcolm
12-03-2005, 13:34
Malcolm,
Strathclyde was not part of Scotland until the early 11th century.
The Later 11th century saw its territory split between Scotland and England.
Welsh names were still commonly recorded in southern Scotland during the 12th century (Edit:actually, probably longer, I just don't have any other examples lying around).
The last time that the charters of the kings of Scotland specifically mentioned the Welsh of the kingdom was in the 12th century (edit: it was during the reign of William the Lion so may have been in the early 13th century).
The veneration of Welsh saints continued on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border for a long time (Edit:I'm guessing until the reformation).
I reckon William Wallace probably had a fair idea of his heritage.
Edit: P.S. I just mentioned Paul Dianno to wind up the hardcore Bruce-ites.
Sorry, I miscounted the centuries... only 1 off, though... He may have known his heritage, but was still Scottish
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-03-2005, 15:05
Malcolm, come on, ruled by the king of Scots, yes, Scottish, as in Gaelic, quite possibly not, or only partially so.
I know that you know this but...
Scotland seems to have been, at that time, a mix of ethnically Welsh, Scandinavian, Flemish, French, Gaelic (I could put Irish for that but, suffice to say, the medieval Gael was fully aware of his cultural ties to Ireland), English and the Gaelic/Pictish mixed population(which seems to have been overwhelmingly Gaelicised by this point, I did have a reference to a manuscript that refers to the last Pictish speakers in an area but I think it was before this time. It was also about rights to land between some Scots and some French clergy, the Scots seemed to have been saying "well, this land was inhabited by our forefathers who were Pictish until quite recently, so the land should be ours").
so, um, yeah, Scottish as in from the geographical area of the Kingdom of Scotland. Scottish as in from one of the many different ethnic groups in the kingdom. Scottish as in Gaelic? maybe, possibly not.
You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.
Side note: When was the last time you came here?~:confused:
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.~;)
Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 19:15
Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.
I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's)...~:rolleyes:. My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.~:rolleyes:
I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's)...~:rolleyes:. My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.~:rolleyes:
I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity. Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity. To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity. Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example. Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family. The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.
* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.
Soulforged
12-05-2005, 04:38
I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity. Show me one.
Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity. What's that identity the people or plastic figures?
To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity. Why don't you prove it? The identity is always in the people. No one should be forced to accept a fantasy in order to keep certain idea of nationality alive.
Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example. Neither I by the Junta, or by this government. But you take the term opressed in an strict form, I'm taking it like you should, in an ample form, the state is there to opress, nothing else, and it even tries to mantain parasites in your society. However if you see it with good eyes, then go ahead, for me a society with social differences is not worth my job of everyday, even worst if those difference are mantained in such faceless manner.
Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family. There's no "producers" in your economy? Operatives of factories, constructors, etc...
The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.Well that's not true, without getting more profound on the subject, we can see that they're above the normal citizen, separating classes of man.
* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.You'll do well to explain national expressions to me...
I've a question for you if you want to answer it: If the prince steals a car and then sells it, is he punished for thievery and blackmail? What will happen to the guy who lives in the slums (if any)? I'm asking in both aspects formal (what should happen) and real (what actually happens).
InsaneApache
12-05-2005, 11:14
@ Soulforged you have some peculiar ideas about how Her Majesty is viewed in the UK. To say that she is special is true, but not the way you think it is. I have more power than she does. She is merely a figurehead. Around about 350 years ago we decided that we had enough of the King and his pushy ways so we arrested him, tried him and then cut his head off and stuck it on a spike as a warning not to mess with democracy.
To say that I am oppressed because we have a Queen is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The reason we decided to allow the monarchy to continue was because the English didn't feel happy with a republic. We don't trust politicians. We regard them as a necessary evil. We concluded hundreds of years ago that a President wasn't such a hot idea after all.....Cromwell (http://www.olivercromwell.org/) showed us that....this is also why the armed forces in the UK have traditionally been minute compared to the general population....so that another coup de'tat would not be possible...ala Cromwell.
Although I personally am not a royalist, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It prevents idiots like Bliar getting hold of all the levers of power with the checks and balances built in. I mean, c'mon President Bliar...it sends shivers down my back. Given the alternatives we plumped to go for continuity and the full panoply of Regina. It's worked spectacularly well for the last four centuries, so the old adage applies...if it aint broke don't fix it.
I'm sure that's as clear as mud.
Prodigal
12-05-2005, 15:01
The Kings of the Scots of Dalriada had a claim on the throne of the Picts, wince King Kenneth MacAlpin being the Grandson of a Pictish King. He just enforced his claim by eradicating the Pictish Army.
But considering the picts followed a matrilinear line, being the grandson seems a bit dodgy. Also the fact that the only historical line of the pictsh kings was written by people that you could consider as being enemies of the picts means its not possible to say how accurate it is. Personally I think that Oengus, by uniting picts & scotii really was the one to blur the lines between the two distinct groups.
The people of South-West modern Scotland were British people, i.e. almost Welsh. In Wallace's time this land had been part of Scotland for almost 3 centuries, he was Scottish, I assure you
Yeah, but its far to good a wind up to let pass.
I don't quite see your point, no...
King James VI & I was directly descended from King Kenneth MacAlpin, who was from both Pictish and Scottish stock.
Exactly! You see! The scottish-pict king's, (and considering the pictish language has been lost would kind of lean toward the MORE scot than pict), invited down south to rule over a bunch of frenchified germans. (I appreciate the recet DNA tests that have been done don't support the genocide theory of invasion, but what the hell)
You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.
Side note: When was the last time you came here?~:confused:
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.~;)
There. You create a reference to your government and suggest that it is attempting to coerce people, presumably through propaganda, to assume the government's idea of national identity.
Natonial identity is formed by the things which make you different, by the deeds of your ancestors and the cultural aspects of your society. The people, despite being the powerhouse of any nation, are just a mass. They help create that identity, but they as a body are not its totality. Also we differ I suspect in our opinion of leadership. I believe that leaders are necessary to maintain society and that figureheads are just as important to the whole.
I repeat that I have never felt oppressed by the British monarchy. Occassionally by my democratically elected government when I have considered their legislation foolish and unjust (and who is to say I am correct), but never by the monarchy.
Of course we have "producers" in this country, but you statement suggested a subsistence level of income which simply does not exist here, hence my comment about Russian peasants.
In answer to your last question about whether a prince would be arrested and prosecuted for a criminal act I would say yes. Legally the authorities would be obliged to: He would have no more immunity than the average citizen (though no doubt he would have superior lawyers). Any cover-up would be illegal and the political fall out from a bungled cover-up would likely out-weigh the fall out from a trial. Besides which I suspect that the Queen would sacrifice just about anything, including a wayward grandson, to keep the monarchy afloat.
The Monarchy is not the biggest thing with spends peoples tax involving the goverment of Britan. percenly i thinink they should be charged with looking after long term futire of the cuntry, 50 years pluss, poleticions will naver do that there too short turm.
by the way Soulforged are you from/a sitisan of Britan?
TheSilverKnight
12-05-2005, 16:03
The monarchy is a purely harmless tradition of Great Britain, and they are representatives of the nation's history and tradition of being a monarchy.
They may cost a little bit of money, but what doesn't? And would you rather prefer a government ruled entirely by Blair and we got rid of all of our historical institutions involving the monarchy?
Sure, the monarchy isn't perfect, and there are members who screw up, but does that mean the entire monarchy is at fault? No. It is the fault of those who screw up. It's not this big deal "OMG ONE OF THE MEMBERS IS A TOTAL BUGGER, LET'S GET RID OF THE MONARCHY!!! REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!111OEN". No. That does not solve anything, and it only creates further anarchy because of the lack of a central figurehead to be a guiding light for the nation and the perfect representative to the world of that nation.
In short, I am a Royalist, and I shall continue to be a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth until the day that I perish from this Earth. And I can not see how anyone can compare regimes with other regimes, when the differences between a Republic and a Monarchy are so different that they are incomparable. A consitutional monarchy as Great Britain has right now, and as a few select countries in Europe have, which have a monarch as the head of state, is the perfect form of government for those nations, and should be not be changed because it is a wonderful representative of the history of those nations.
And to those who think Bruce Dickinson should be monarch...~:joker: ...he's good, but we could probly find someone just as good as Bruce, or perhaps even better. ~;)
The Monarchy is not the biggest thing with spends peoples tax involving the goverment of Britan. percenly i thinink they should be charged with looking after long term futire of the cuntry, 50 years pluss, poleticions will naver do that there too short turm.
by the way Soulforged are you from/a sitisan of Britan?
He is from Argentinia, as it says under his avatar.
Although it doesn't usually bother me I do hope that you either
a) have English as a second language (in which case continue the lessons) or
b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you).
If neither apply then please post coherently (though Org tradition does state that the actual content of a post need not make sense)!
Louis VI the Fat
12-05-2005, 19:54
I bet Soulforged's English beats most Englishmen's Spanish, or any second language, by a huge margin...~:rolleyes:
Duke Malcolm
12-05-2005, 20:28
No Briton let alone Englishman has a second language...
Mouzafphaerre
12-05-2005, 20:54
.
Are all Englishmen American? ~:confused: ~D
What do you call a person who speaks more than two languages?
Polyglot.
What do you call a person who speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call a person who speaks only one language?
American. ~D
.
TheSilverKnight
12-05-2005, 21:09
No Briton let alone Englishman has a second language...
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure last time I checked I could speak Spanish.
Duke Malcolm
12-05-2005, 21:24
I know, it is mere generalisation that Britons cannot speak foreign, but is true for most people...
TheSilverKnight
12-05-2005, 21:30
I know, it is mere generalisation that Britons cannot speak foreign, but is true for most people...
True, I see your point then, friend ~:cheers: :bow: Thanks for clearing that up for me
Oh Soulforged's English is certainly better than my Spanish, since I don't know any. But then of course my pedantry about the abuse of English was not directed at Soulforged but at Zerg.
Soulforged
12-06-2005, 06:19
@ Soulforged you have some peculiar ideas about how Her Majesty is viewed in the UK. To say that she is special is true, but not the way you think it is. I have more power than she does. She is merely a figurehead. Around about 350 years ago we decided that we had enough of the King and his pushy ways so we arrested him, tried him and then cut his head off and stuck it on a spike as a warning not to mess with democracy.Actually no. I know some of your history. The problem here is general, but I think that in monarchy's cases it's formally even worse.
To say that I am oppressed because we have a Queen is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The reason we decided to allow the monarchy to continue was because the English didn't feel happy with a republic. We don't trust politicians. We regard them as a necessary evil. We concluded hundreds of years ago that a President wasn't such a hot idea after all...I know all that, but you seem to not understand what oppressed really means in my statements.
Although I personally am not a royalist, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It prevents idiots like Bliar getting hold of all the levers of power with the checks and balances built in. I mean, c'mon President Bliar...it sends shivers down my back. Given the alternatives we plumped to go for continuity and the full panoply of Regina. It's worked spectacularly well for the last four centuries, so the old adage applies...if it aint broke don't fix it.If they don't have any power, then how they actually balance the power inside the government. I think that the Parlament should be enough, if not, then there's the people.
I'm sure that's as clear as mud.It was always clears as mud. But some people still defend social unequality when it tends to certain purposes. Unequality is never desired, at least by me.
There. You create a reference to your government and suggest that it is attempting to coerce people, presumably through propaganda, to assume the government's idea of national identity.Agree, all states do that, is a way to preserve it's existence. It could be through propaganda, as you say, or through plastic figures.
Natonial identity is formed by the things which make you different, by the deeds of your ancestors and the cultural aspects of your society. The people, despite being the powerhouse of any nation, are just a mass. They help create that identity, but they as a body are not its totality. Also we differ I suspect in our opinion of leadership. I believe that leaders are necessary to maintain society and that figureheads are just as important to the whole.Leaders where important when people didn't knew that they could do things by themselves and that they've rights. But if you think they're important, again I'm not going to disuade you (well actually I want to change your minds, maybe a subliminal image could work~D ), but do you consider that those plastic figures, of protocol and pomposity are leaders? Your leaders? About the mass concept. That's again trying to separete and give different standars to equal people. The mass is not less because it's the mass, you're as representative of your nation as I'm of mine, you don't need some traditional figure to represent you, nor to command you, nor to establish your identity or mantain it.
I repeat that I have never felt oppressed by the British monarchy. Occassionally by my democratically elected government when I have considered their legislation foolish and unjust (and who is to say I am correct), but never by the monarchy.Oppression not only means "unjust" laws or repression of movements. It means any kind of law for taht matter, any kind of alienation of your power. Of course you'll not agree with me on this. But the monarchy, though only a mere idealism, has an extra formal charge that in your custom sais, "They represent us, and they're above the common "mass"".
Of course we have "producers" in this country, but you statement suggested a subsistence level of income which simply does not exist here, hence my comment about Russian peasants.Perhaps I must clearify what "break your ass" means. It's mostly working for your employeer, for the capitalist, or for the state, while you're doing physical work and producing something, some other is just well....thinking.
In answer to your last question about whether a prince would be arrested and prosecuted for a criminal act I would say yes. Legally the authorities would be obliged to: He would have no more immunity than the average citizen (though no doubt he would have superior lawyers). Any cover-up would be illegal and the political fall out from a bungled cover-up would likely out-weigh the fall out from a trial. Besides which I suspect that the Queen would sacrifice just about anything, including a wayward grandson, to keep the monarchy afloat.But what's the difference with the guy of the slums then? What real differences there are between both procedures. How do you feel about the treatment that both should be granted?
I bet Soulforged's English beats most Englishmen's Spanish, or any second language, by a huge margin...Thanks Louis, but I think you're overestimating me. :bow:
I'm looking forward to learn french...Well actually I'll be forced anyway, because the university of laws is forcing the students to learn "france" for the Civile Droit and all that. ~D
InsaneApache
12-06-2005, 10:56
If they don't have any power, then how they actually balance the power inside the government. I think that the Parlament should be enough, if not, then there's the people.
Ok I'll try to explain how it works in a paragraph.
Her Majesty is the nominal head of the Government. All governments in the UK are called Her Majesties Government. This means that in theory the government of the day is responsible to the Queen.
However in actuality the Government is answerable to Parliament. This little question of who the government of the day is responsible to was address in the English Civil War. (referred in my previous post to Cromwell)
Parliament is elected by the people (known as the electorate). Everybody in the UK over the age of 18 years old automatically gets the vote. There are a few exceptions to this, but the one that we are concerned with here is the Queen. HM does not get the vote. She is barred from showing political partiality and in essence her role is reduced to that of a signitory, in other words her power extends to signing acts of Parliament. (Royal Assent)
To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.
Louis VI the Fat
12-06-2005, 19:53
But then of course my pedantry about the abuse of English was not directed at Soulforged but at Zerg.Oops. I only get it now.
I suppose this shows that it's my English reading skills that leave a lot to be desired...
Sorry man. :bow:
Spetulhu
12-06-2005, 22:09
To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.
That's a different thing, isn't it? The Queen can't be prosecuted at all if I understood it right.
InsaneApache
12-06-2005, 23:24
That's a different thing, isn't it? The Queen can't be prosecuted at all if I understood it right.
It is understood in English common law that no one is above the law. It started in 1215 iirc.
Spetulhu
12-07-2005, 00:28
It is understood in English common law that no one is above the law. It started in 1215 iirc.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp
Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person.
Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.
However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.
Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity. This usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name.
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 00:37
Parliament is elected by the people (known as the electorate). Everybody in the UK over the age of 18 years old automatically gets the vote. There are a few exceptions to this, but the one that we are concerned with here is the Queen. HM does not get the vote. She is barred from showing political partiality and in essence her role is reduced to that of a signitory, in other words her power extends to signing acts of Parliament. (Royal Assent)So the Queen or the King has actually some power, just procesal, but it's power nontheless. Tough you can't deny that you don't need the Queen as an impartial element when the Palamentary system could function with not royalty at all, I think that the model of Bismark (or is it Bismarch?) functioned that way. The system of limitations and "levers" of the Parlamentary system are good as they're you don't need another subject.
To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.You still don't understand me. You're right, in fact it has happened all the time here, with the capitalists too and with the famous. But the difference is that ideal burden that the royalty has. Formally the president is not more than the Prime Minister, he only has more functions, but he's still elected, the Queen however...
i am b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you). got a free PC of goverment :p long live the queen etc
i asked about where he was from because he asked about producers in are economy, and of course we are manly a service driven economy.
i try my best to keep my spellings good using MS words spell check
Soulforged why dose it bother you wather we have a queen or not she is a long way from you?
He is from Argentinia, as it says under his avatar.
Although it doesn't usually bother me I do hope that you either
a) have English as a second language (in which case continue the lessons) or
b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you).
If neither apply then please post coherently (though Org tradition does state that the actual content of a post need not make sense)!
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 04:10
Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person.Well in fact you can't do the same to the president, a congresist or a judge here without them being officially "fired" first. In our long tradition in the west for praising to idealism and formalism, we dress certain figures with fictional immunity.
Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.Well that corrects my views.
Soulforged why dose it bother you wather we have a queen or not she is a long way from you?I don't have to live in your country to know that the "royalty" is not representative of all the people or your nationality. This is a political discussion, I thought that my opinions were apreciated, wheter I'm from Argentina or Sudafrica. Also every case of unequality worries me, not for me properly speaking, but for the situation of the human kind as a whole.
I don't have to live in your country to know that the "royalty" is not representative of all the people or your nationality. This is a political discussion, I thought that my opinions were apreciated, wheter I'm from Argentina or Sudafrica. Also every case of unequality worries me, not for me properly speaking, but for the situation of the human kind as a whole.
I can see how on the outside looking in that our system (UK +common nations that still have the Queen as our sovergin, there are 15) which grants a family of German extraction with questionable genetic variation in public office for life seems strange. You live in a nation where almost no for life public positions (Argentinas system of governemtn is based of the US one am I right?) exist. Let alone a head of state that is given their position by an accedent of birth.
So let me ask you this, does your president represent all the people all the time? I doubt you can say yes. For those of us who live in nations with Kings/Emperors/Princes/Dukes in charge is just another form of government. The un-elected nature of the Queen doesn't bother me. I like living in a monarchy, it's practically unique these days. Besides never electing a head of state or the upper chamber of parliment means that there is no money spent electing them. ~D Really even if they did do away with the monarchy the operation of the govenment wouldn't change much. The Queen is replaced by a president (who has the same exact powers as the Queen but maybe more willing to use them) the lords by a senate like house. But all the executive power stays with the PM. So in the end what is the point of getting rid of the Windsors?
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 05:39
I can see how on the outside looking in that our system (UK +common nations that still have the Queen as our sovergin, there are 15) which grants a family of German extraction with questionable genetic variation in public office for life seems strange. You live in a nation where almost no for life public positions (Argentinas system of governemtn is based of the US one am I right?) exist. Let alone a head of state that is given their position by an accedent of birth. The only ones with theoretical temporally indeterminated occupation are the judges (wich is done to ensure impartiality).
So let me ask you this, does your president represent all the people all the time?No.
For those of us who live in nations with Kings/Emperors/Princes/Dukes in charge is just another form of government. The un-elected nature of the Queen doesn't bother me. I'm discussing the ideal burden of it. A man or woman above all others, by the power of God or blood. Now if the consecuences of a procedimental democracy as we live today and those of the monarchy are unwanted, then yes I don't like both.
Besides never electing a head of state or the upper chamber of parliment means that there is no money spent electing them. ~D Well that's truth. In the "democracy" in wich we live it will be the same to elect a head of state, or even a whole parliament by randomness as by voting.
Really even if they did do away with the monarchy the operation of the govenment wouldn't change much. The Queen is replaced by a president (who has the same exact powers as the Queen but maybe more willing to use them) the lords by a senate like house. The Queen has the same executory powers of a president?~:confused: In wich way you say this?
So in the end what is the point of getting rid of the Windsors? IMO an act of evolution.
When the monarchy was a system to keep up some kind of organization, royals made sense, and people with more privileges than others. That the system is based on blood heritage is bull, so that's the main problem with it. But these days, where they don't actually got any power, but are just there to entertain 80 year old women in retirement homes reading their morning paper with such exciting stories as "Prinz August - der Pinkelprinz" ( about a german royal who peed onto a tree ), they're useless and I would want to save up the 50 cent they cost in a year.
i am b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you). got a free PC of goverment :p long live the queen etc
Lol. It only takes a free PC to produce loyal citizens! Argentinia could learn from this! Good for you Zerg.
InsaneApache
12-07-2005, 19:20
got a free PC of goverment :p long live the queen etc
You know I might have been a bit hasty with my posts abour Sir....sorry... Mr. Anthony Linton Blair...what a fine upstanding chap he really is...:saint: I take it all back, what a fantastic, non-condescending, non-lying, non-hypocritical, non-controlfreak he is. We all love you Tony ~:flirt:
Three cheers for Tony...~:cheers:
do I get a free pc now? :hide:
hehe~D
KukriKhan
12-07-2005, 19:24
Heh. I never knew his full birthname. I can't believe I never looked it up.~:eek:
Yes your opinions are appreciated it is interesting to see what some 1 from a different country thinks of mine, as I can not see it from the outside :)
Soulforged why dose it bother you wather we have a queen or not she is a long way from you?
I don't have to live in your country to know that the "royalty" is not representative of all the people or your nationality. This is a political discussion, I thought that my opinions were apreciated, wheter I'm from Argentina or Sudafrica. Also every case of unequality worries me, not for me properly speaking, but for the situation of the human kind as a whole.
You know I might have been a bit hasty with my posts abour Sir....sorry...
don’t worry about it :)
Well I like Britain as a Monarchy
but if we did away with the house of Lords and the Monarchy they would have to be replaced with something (if nothing else parliament would make something new for there fun) any way it would result in more elected people which is very easy manipulated by businesses and of course more expensive than what we got now I’d bet.
~:handball:
Soulforged
12-08-2005, 06:30
Lol. It only takes a free PC to produce loyal citizens! Argentinia could learn from this! Good for you Zerg.You mean like distributing free PCs, well they're doing so now, but we're not first world country you know~;) .
Also I don't give a damn about loyalty, and I hope that every single person in this ******* country could learn a little disloyalty, why in hell I want to be loyal to the state?!~D
The only ones with theoretical temporally indeterminated occupation are the judges (wich is done to ensure impartiality).
Which is what I though.
No. I'm discussing the ideal burden of it. A man or woman above all others, by the power of God or blood. Now if the consecuences of a procedimental democracy as we live today and those of the monarchy are unwanted, then yes I don't like both.
Well how the burden of supporting the monarchy is gone about is determined by the elected government.
Well that's truth. In the "democracy" in wich we live it will be the same to elect a head of state, or even a whole parliament by randomness as by voting.
Winston Churchhill had 2 good quotes about this subject.
"Democracy is the worst system of government around, except for all the others."
"The best arguement against democracy is 5 minute conversation with the average voter."
I whole heartedly agree with both.
The Queen has the same executory powers of a president?~:confused: In wich way you say this?
That depends on the countries who's presidency you are talking about. HRH the Queen has nearly exactly the same constitutional powers as the presidents of Germany, Austria, Italy, and Portugal. That's what I mean. If the UK became a repbulic it would be in the style of those nations not the USA.
IMO an act of evolution.
A position I don't share, and won't ever.
Soulforged
12-09-2005, 05:59
That depends on the countries who's presidency you are talking about. HRH the Queen has nearly exactly the same constitutional powers as the presidents of Germany, Austria, Italy, and Portugal. That's what I mean. If the UK became a repbulic it would be in the style of those nations not the USA.Well then it's not in the style of mine, because the model was almost directly copied from USA.
A position I don't share, and won't ever.Never say never.~;)
HRH the QueenThis is what I'm talking about when I say "ideal burden", I mean is this really necessary? Calling the Queen HRH (wich I suppose is her real highness right?) implies that she's actually above all other people, that she is somewhat, but right of blood or by the name of God, above all others.
Well then it's not in the style of mine, because the model was almost directly copied from USA.
Exactly, the Queens position is not comperable in any way to the president in an yankee style republic.
Never say never.~;)
I can, even if Canada became a republic I'd support a restoration movement. ~:cheers:
This is what I'm talking about when I say "ideal burden", I mean is this really necessary? Calling the Queen HRH (wich I suppose is her real highness right?) implies that she's actually above all other people, that she is somewhat, but right of blood or by the name of God, above all others.
Real=Royal in english (I can't put the accent on the E though ~;) ). It's a traditional title, like her majesty the queen. Used when describing the monarch, or member of the royal family, it doesn't have to be used though. Prince William in fact hates it, makes him feel wierd and on a pedistal. But as the Queen is a head of state she is automatically confered a certain dignity like HRH or HM. Political leaders are accorded similar honourifics. In the british modeled systems it's *insert title like prime minister or cabinet minister* the right honourable *insert name*. Presidents are given similar honours like Mr. President. Also in britain, I believe, you address all judges as my lord. Not sure if we do that or not.
Mouzafphaerre
12-09-2005, 17:50
.
Excellency or your excellency is used even for diplomats.
.
^Exactly, all the modern titles like Sir and Excellency started with titles like your majesty. It's just that a monarch can use those old honourifics.
Soulforged
12-10-2005, 03:56
Real=Royal in english (I can't put the accent on the E though ~;) ). It's a traditional title, like her majesty the queen. Used when describing the monarch, or member of the royal family, it doesn't have to be used though. Prince William in fact hates it, makes him feel wierd and on a pedistal. But as the Queen is a head of state she is automatically confered a certain dignity like HRH or HM. Political leaders are accorded similar honourifics. In the british modeled systems it's *insert title like prime minister or cabinet minister* the right honourable *insert name*. Presidents are given similar honours like Mr. President. Also in britain, I believe, you address all judges as my lord. Not sure if we do that or not.Well you got me there...But then again the little prince knows that he's in a pedistal, titles couldn't be less important.
We call the president here many things wich cannot be repeated here, we usually give them surnames, the actual is "biscocho" (I couldn't find the translation in english, it alludes to a condition of the vision, I think it's bipolar vision) or "pingüino". Except for some presidents in ancient times and Perón I don't remember any other treated with respect at all (and notice that I'm even saying respect, not anymore titles). Here they're little more than the average rich man actually.
You can say the same for political leadership in any country. Our PM Paul Martin is a millionaire, who used to be the head honcho (after bying his way into) of Canada steamship lines. The whole time he was finance minister (8 years) he wa also CEO of the company. And made sure that government plums came it's way. In fact only upon his assention to the leadership of the liberals and the PM office did he turn his corporate powers over to his sons.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.