Happy Birthday Queen Elizabeth!

[yesdachi]

80 years young!

Will this be a big celebration or is it more of a wave and smile event?

[InsaneApache]

Don't really care all that much. The only good thing about having the Queen as our head of state, is that she keeps the political elite from nominating a President.

You rascal ex-colonists missed a trick there my friend. ~;)

[Duke Malcolm]

Vivat Regina, as my commemorative coin says.

I was woken up this morning with the glorious national dirge echoing throughout my house on BBC Radio 4 this morning, good stuff...

[Idaho]

Ok - sweepstake on how many years she has left. I reckon she's good for another 15 at least before she croaks.

Unless we are really lucky and she gets strung up from the balcony of Buckingham Palace before her time.

[Duke Malcolm]

I think she won't reach 90... Then Charles will become King, but will use George and shall be King George VII...

[Kanamori]

https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2946/acthequeen3jq.jpg

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen


God . Save. The Queen.

It brings me to tears.~D

[thrashaholic]

Happy Birthday your majesty.

The best thing we ever did was keep our monarchy, just look at countries that got rid of theirs.....France.....need I say more? :p

[Ianofsmeg16]

Ok - sweepstake on how many years she has left. I reckon she's good for another 15 at least before she croaks.

Unless we are really lucky and she gets strung up from the balcony of Buckingham Palace before her time.
Thats a bit harsh isnt it? what has she ever done to you?

[BigTex]

I'm so glad sometimes we don't have a king/queen/Tyranical Dictator in the USA.

I'm sure Vegas has odds on when she'll die.

[Kanamori]

Taken his money and spent it on expensive linens and expensive linens for all the extended family.:laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes, a mighty 7.5p per person out of pocket, however almost £3 per person contribution from Her... profit of, well, almost £3...

[Lemur]

God . Save. The Queen.

It brings me to tears.~D
Ummm ... kanamori ... ummm ... she isn't our queen. Wisconsin does not, to the best of my knowledge, acknowledge any royalty beyond Dairy Queen and Burger King. That's about it.

I've never understood the fascination some of my countrymen have with royalty that ain't ours.

[Don Corleone]

Don't really care all that much. The only good thing about having the Queen as our head of state, is that she keeps the political elite from nominating a President.

You rascal ex-colonists missed a trick there my friend. ~;)

Our president is not the equivalent of the President of France or the ROI.
We're not a parlimentary system, so we don't have a prime minister. Our president is essentially a fusion of a president AND a prime minister.

[Don Corleone]

Ummm ... kanamori ... ummm ... she isn't our queen. Wisconsin does not, to the best of my knowledge, acknowledge any royalty beyond Dairy Queen and Burger King. That's about it.

I've never understood the fascination some of my countrymen have with royalty that ain't ours.

Hey now, America has a lot of royalty...

We have the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.
We have the King of All Media, Howard Stern.
We have the King, Elvis Presly (and don't you DARE tell me that I didn't see him at a Carolina Panthers game last Fall).
We have, as you mention, the Burger King (freaky ass lookin dude, he scares my wife) and the Dairy Queen (though, nobody has EVER laid eyes onher :inquisitive: )
We have the Lion King (2 actually, Mufasa and Simba).

But nope, we have no regent. QE2 holds no claim to our lives and livelihood.

[Viking]

Our president is essentially a fusion of a president AND a prime minister.

Now that sounds like something. ~:)

[Kanamori]

I'm just having some sarcastic fun with the pomp, because I know that my feelings are mirrored by some on that side of the pond too..:laugh4:

[solypsist]

http://www.sepiaport.com/images/queer.jpg

[Duke Malcolm]

Our president is not the equivalent of the President of France or the ROI.
We're not a parlimentary system, so we don't have a prime minister. Our president is essentially a fusion of a president AND a prime minister.

So France is French, the Irish have a President who has less powers than Her Brittanic Majesty, and you have a someone who, if his party held a majority in both houses he would wield absolute power over federal affairs?

[BigTex]

So France is French, the Irish have a President who has less powers than Her Brittanic Majesty, and you have a someone who, if his party held a majority in both houses he would wield absolute power over federal affairs?

No, there's over 400 members of congress. If the president were to do anything he public viamently disagreed with, there would be enough congressmen voting against the idea. There is also the US supreme court, the defenders of the constitution.

[Don Corleone]

Yes and no. First and foremost, the president and the congress still can't do anything that the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional. At the end of the day, our Surpeme Court wields more power (theoretically) then the president and the congress combined. However, they have no power to enforce their decisions, they can only come out and say what the president & congress are up to is unconstitutional. This is why we Americans prattle on about the Supreme Court so much (which, I suppose if you don't have one, seems like much ado about nothing... it's something, believe me...)

Second, it's rare that even when they are in the same party that the president and Congress will see eye to eye on a lot. What's more, there's a lot of cheques built into the Senate rules so that unless one party has a ridiculous majority (like > 2/3), the minority party can hold them up and run interference. The House tends to play it foot loose and fancy free... 50.1% is enough to pull anything off.

But yes, theoretically, if the president's party won majorities in both houses, one party would run everything over here (because the military, the money, the borders, etc, would all be in their hands). The supreme court could only stand on the sidelines crying foul. Tachi and other American Leftys would probably even tell you that's what's actually going on right now, but in truth, the president's fight within his own party is worse than anything he has going on with the Democrats right now.

Technically, when it comes to foreign affairs, the president wields absolute power, even if both houses are held by the opposition. Only he can negotiate deals and receive emissaries. The only thing Congress has to do with foreign policy (other than voting the money to pay for it) is the Senate has to ratify a treaty for us to officially join to a treaty (which, I think, is technically why we never formally joined the Kyoto accords. W just quit asking the Senate to sign it, after they'd said no 3 times already).

[Craterus]

God Save the Queen.
'Cos tourists are money!

My views echo those of those of the Sex Pistols!

[Duke Malcolm]

Ah, that makes it clearer. And thus shows the failings of British system whereby the members of the House of Commons habitually vote by the party lines to get into the Cheif Whip's good books and get a hand up into the possiblities of becoming a Minister of the Crown...
Thank you Don...

[Duke Malcolm]

God Save the Queen.
'Cos tourists are money!

My views echo those of those of the Sex Pistols!

indeed, and what tripe it is...

[Beirut]

https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2946/acthequeen3jq.jpg

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen




Happy Birthday to Her Majesty from a humble servant. :bow:

[Ianofsmeg16]

At least one Tree Killing Colonial knows his place :D

Happy Birthday your majesty, I hope you rule over us as long as your life allows...your son, i cannot hope the same thing...

Who else here thinks William will make a much better king than Charles?

[Duke Malcolm]

I don't think he will make a better King, but he would make a more popular King. Charles has proven he cares about the country and has contributed towards it considerably, what with the Prince's Trust, his model village, and many others. He is unpopular with the media, though, who seem to often put what he says in a bad light, such as with his comments on schools not so long ago, which seemed to say that children are made to believe that they can achieve more than they are actually able while the tabloids declared he said something like poor children should not be allowed to achieve as well as middle- and upper- class children...

[Craterus]

indeed, and what tripe it is...

The Sex Pistols are tripe? Or the way things work?

I'm only content with the monarchy because they bring in more money than they spend. However, they could cut back on spending and actually do something. Not a fan of the way of the silver spoon.

[yesdachi]

Yes and no. First and foremost, the president...
Good explanation Don. I doubt there is a Government (the class) teacher in the entire public school system that could have explained it as well in as few a words. :2thumbsup:

[Duke Malcolm]

The Sex Pistols are tripe? Or the way things work?
That is hardly the way things work.
Their main contribution to the country is Her Majesty's private income, which She gives over to the Treasury, and amounted to last year almost £180 millions -- £3 per person. The Allowance the Royal Family received was 7.5p per person.

Furthermore, the fact the Head of State is above the party politics of elections should be important, she cares about the country, and has no party worries...

[Kanamori]

Perhaps I have to tread more carefully than I thought, I was nearly sure it was unanimous that Brits were only waiting for a foul before the Monarchy was tossed out of the window.


The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations. The nature of a constitution, the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know, and easy to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are easy ideas; anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, ‘Will you be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?’ the inquiry comes out thus—‘Will you be governed in a way you understand, or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?’ The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, ‘Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?’ The French people said, ‘We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine. ... To state the matter shortly, Royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions. A Republic is a government in which that attention is divided between many, who are all doing uninteresting actions. Accordingly, so long as the human heart is strong and the human reason weak, Royalty will be strong because it appeals to diffused feeling, and Republics weak because they appeal to understanding.’

The only advantage I can see is when they act diplomatically; the word of a monarch carries much more sway than the word of a President who is elected for a four year term.
:2cents:



Their main contribution to the country is Her Majesty's private income, which She gives over to the Treasury, and amounted to last year almost £180 millions -- £3 per person.

I might also add that they own most of London, and lease it to people, rather than selling the property. I doubt that will change anytime soon, and I doubt that people will be able to live on their own land for some time.

[Scurvy]

i think the queen is a great person, and great for the country as a whole :2thumbsup:

[Craterus]

The only advantage I can see is when they act diplomatically; the word of a monarch carries much more sway than the word of a President who is elected for a four year term.
:2cents:

Hardly. Do you know the process of the ceremony when the Queen opens Parliament at the start of the year? A messenger will walk from her throne in the Lords, straight down the central corridor in the Palace of Westminster to the Chamber of the Commons. As he/she(?) is about to enter the Commons, the door gets shut in the messenger's face to show that the power is with the people.

The Queen also comes last in the process of passing laws. That said, I don't think she's ever refused to give Royal Assent. Who knows what would happen if she did? Once a law's been passed through both houses, it's been passed. It's unheard of that the Queen would refuse. She's just a figurehead.

[Kanamori]

I meant the voice is taken as being the voice of the country united, not some very partisan politician who will only be in office for a short time. Because she is seen as being above the political game, which I will add she certainly is not, her word carries more weight; e.g., when they express sorrow at natural disasters or speak of ties between countries.

And it would also be prudent for me to add that Britain is not as it was in the time of Bagehot, and the citizens are hardly buffoons. That is why you do not really need them, IMO.

[Craterus]

Oh, of course. Just a figurehead though. A very extravagant figurehead...

[doc_bean]

Oh, of course. Just a figurehead though. A very extravagant figurehead...

Who, at least in the UK, is probably a lot cheaper to maintain than a president.

I'm beginning to favour the idea of a monarchy lately, the presidents of late **** up at least as much these days.
Now if only we could find an heir that would know how to screw in a lightbulb...

[Craterus]

I'm not suggesting a presidency. I'm suggesting the Royals work for all their luxuries..

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'm only content with the monarchy because they bring in more money than they spend.

I think it would be more accurate to say that all of the lovely buildings they live in attract the tourists. Just think, if we kicked them out we could run proper tours and make even more cash! Plus, imagine the reality TV possibilities! 'The Royals in Brixton' would be massive!

[Justiciar]

Gah. Eurotrash.

:help:

[Craterus]

I think it would be more accurate to say that all of the lovely buildings they live in attract the tourists. Just think, if we kicked them out we could run proper tours and make even more cash! Plus, just think of the reality TV possibilities! 'The Royals in Brixton' would be massive!

I had similar thoughts. Kick them out of the palaces, but keep them open to tourists on the story that the Queen is still living there (I assume that would attract more tourists).

Move the Royals into a council house..

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Erm, sure...happy...bithday?...:inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Happy Birthday your majesty, I hope you rule over us as long as your life allows...your son, i cannot hope the same thing...

Who else here thinks William will make a much better king than Charles?

This viewpoint always amuses me, as does the 'presidents bad, monarchs good' argument.

The UK has been blessed with an extraordinary woman as head of state for the past 60 years. Charles is unfavoured by the media and much of the populace, largely it seems, because he fell out with his beautiful wife. William appears to be the people's choice because he looks good in the papers.

EXCEPT the people don't get to choose their head of state. If the heir to the throne is a drunk or drooling idiot, a wastrel or thug, they get to be monarch whether their subjects like it or not. History shows that there have been many great presidents, and many awful ones - and the same goes for monarchs. But you can't get rid of the awful monarch save by civil war or revolution.

Remember, if it hadn't been for an accident of protocol, the UK should have had the spineless Nazi sympathiser Edward VIII on the throne and whatever monstrosity of a child he might have had following on instead of Elizabeth. And almost certainly have become a happy Republic by now.

If you get Charles, that's because that's the way it works.

'You don't vote for kings' Dennis the Peasant.

[thrashaholic]

I'm not suggesting a presidency. I'm suggesting the Royals work for all their luxuries..

What rot. The royals do work for their luxuries. The Queen is one of the hardest working people in the country, she has an immessurably busy schedule the greatest volume of which is charitable work on top of her political and diplomatic duties as head of state, which she takes extrememly seriously too. Royal assent isn't just a matter of her signing through laws willy nilly, she actually reads through every one and makes sure she understands the full implications of them (Andrew Mar's programme on the Queen a couple of weeks ago) before she signs them, and I'm positive if there was a law that seriously impinged on the rights and freedom of her people she would not accept it.

The volume of charitable work that gets done by the royals (including the extended royal family) that would not get done if they didn't have such high status or didn't exist is reason enough alone for not to remove them. That on top of the tourist income (despite your professions to the contrary, I am certain that the palaces would lose their mystique were the royal family not to exist), and them being a link to our past, an embodiment of our history and heritage (removing them and replacing them with whatever slimy political alternative there'd have to be would be, in my considered opinion, like knocking down all our castles and building a car park in its stead), as well as all the work the Queen does as head of the commonwealth and head of state, we should certainly not remove them, but cherish them and appreciate all the hard work that it is their duty to put in for the British people.

[Craterus]

For all this charity work, the Queen probably gets a new outfit for every single one.

As long as they generate more money than they spend, I don't really mind.

What I do mind is that they live a life of luxury (don't deny that) for being conceived...

EDIT: I mean, you're being made into (supposedly) one of the most powerful people in the world for being born and then managing to survive longer than the current monarch.

[cunobelinus]

The queen does do alot for the country like u said she is just a figure head but she does do loads of good things but also she gets money spent on her that i dont think is really needed most of the time .The amount of money spent on her birthday was proberly ridiculous and for charles he should never be on throne of england.i think it should be passed down to william or harry .Charles seems to be moaning about everything so i think he would ruin the apperance of the monarchy

[thrashaholic]

What I do mind is that they live a life of luxury (don't deny that) for being conceived...

EDIT: I mean, you're being made into (supposedly) one of the most powerful people in the world for being born and then managing to survive longer than the current monarch.

Conversely, they don't ask to be born to the previous monarch, and the last monarch that abdicated (Edward VIII) is treated with such contempt by the general public that one could say that they are being born into an impossible position: they either accept one of the most seemingly thankless jobs in the world (as you are demonstrating), or they don't and are treated with utter derision by the population of this country for the rest of their life. They are born into celebrity and are in the public eye for their entire life, something I certainly wouldn't want at all, the life of luxury they lead is precious little recompense for the hard work they do and the hell their people put them through.

We should all feel a little more grateful for them being there than we do at the moment.

[Quid]

What rot. The royals do work for their luxuries. The Queen is one of the hardest working people in the country, she has an immessurably busy schedule the greatest volume of which is charitable work on top of her political and diplomatic duties as head of state, which she takes extrememly seriously too. Royal assent isn't just a matter of her signing through laws willy nilly, she actually reads through every one and makes sure she understands the full implications of them (Andrew Mar's programme on the Queen a couple of weeks ago) before she signs them, and I'm positive if there was a law that seriously impinged on the rights and freedom of her people she would not accept it.

The volume of charitable work that gets done by the royals (including the extended royal family) that would not get done if they didn't have such high status or didn't exist is reason enough alone for not to remove them. That on top of the tourist income (despite your professions to the contrary, I am certain that the palaces would lose their mystique were the royal family not to exist), and them being a link to our past, an embodiment of our history and heritage (removing them and replacing them with whatever slimy political alternative there'd have to be would be, in my considered opinion, like knocking down all our castles and building a car park in its stead), as well as all the work the Queen does as head of the commonwealth and head of state, we should certainly not remove them, but cherish them and appreciate all the hard work that it is their duty to put in for the British people.

Excellent post! Coudn't have put it batter...and I am not even English.


Conversely, they don't ask to be born to the previous monarch, and the last monarch that abdicated (Edward VIII) is treated with such contempt by the general public that one could say that they are being born into an impossible position: they either accept one of the most seemingly thankless jobs in the world (as you are demonstrating), or they don't and are treated with utter derision by the population of this country for the rest of their life. They are born into celebrity and are in the public eye for their entire life, something I certainly wouldn't want at all, the life of luxury they lead is precious little recompense for the hard work they do and the hell their people put them through.

We should all feel a little more grateful for them being there than we do at the moment.

...and again. Very accurate.

In my opinion, heading a summer camp with foreign students in England every year, this is one of the main things that actually still brings the GREAT into Great Britain.

Quid

[Duke Malcolm]

I think it would be more accurate to say that all of the lovely buildings they live in attract the tourists. Just think, if we kicked them out we could run proper tours and make even more cash! Plus, imagine the reality TV possibilities! 'The Royals in Brixton' would be massive!

What is it with this myth that the Monarchy only does good for this country by attracting tourists to spend their money?
Furthermore, most of the Royal estates would stay in the hands of the Family if the monarchy was abolished. The Balmoral Estate, Sandringham, the Duchy of Cornwall and the estates thereof, Buckingham palace, all these would still be the property of House of Windsor... they would probably be richer without being the Royal Household, because they would keep the income from all these estates...

Edit: and I would hardly say that the public have more understanding now than when Monarchies were the height of fashion. Some simply follow the latest fashions and hence go for overt Republicanism. Arguments about tourism and cost to the nation and other other such unimaginitve examples are stereotypical of the fashion-following anti-monarchists. Who knows, in 100 years Anarchy could be all the rage... perhaps we'd better get ahead of the game and start a free-for-all...

[doc_bean]

What I do mind is that they live a life of luxury (don't deny that) for being conceived...

EDIT: I mean, you're being made into (supposedly) one of the most powerful people in the world for being born and then managing to survive longer than the current monarch.

How would your life be like if you were born in central Africa ? The difference between their standard of living and yours is far greater than between your standard and the royal's.

[Idaho]

Prince Charles has a servant put toothpaste on his toothbrush. I object to paying for that!

[rory_20_uk]

Idaho, I feel sorry for the Prince if that is the case. There are some things I want to be able to do for myself, and to be denied of privacy for that much of the time must make life difficult.

I think that the Monarchy should do more in the country than they do at the moment - excepting the opening of an endless stream of building etc etc.

The honours list would be safer in the monarch's hands, or at the very least with a proper veto and not accepting whichever politician's friends are up for awards this year.

In cases where public outcry was as great as concerning the Iraq war I feel the monarch has a duty to act for the people as clearly the Commons was failing in their role. In extremis she can dissolve parliment, and then we would see if the politicians campained on pro war or not.

~:smoking:

[Red Peasant]

Belated Birthday wishes to Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover. She ain't done bad for someone of dodgy central European immigrant stock. At least the German spongers have proved more accommodating to English sensibilities than the previous Scottish spongers. ~;)

Since when has it been fashionable to be a Republican in this country in the last 300 years or so, DM?

[InsaneApache]

I'll give you that, she is good value for money. She's never put a foot out of place. She's known Prime ministers from Churchill to Bliar, I'd love to be a fly on her palatial wall when she meets that miscreant Bliar. I bet she gives him a right good ol' spanking.

As for Americans being fascinated about Royalty, especially the British 'firm', that goes with the territory I'm afraid. The French seem to miss theirs as well, as do the Italians.

You don't what you got 'til it's gone.

Anyroad, I'll wish her many happy returns, and hope against hope that she outlives that cretin Charlie.

:laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

Belated Birthday wishes to Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover. She ain't done bad for someone of dodgy central European immigrant stock. At least the German spongers have proved more accommodating to English sensibilities than the previous Scottish spongers. ~;)

Since when has it been fashionable to be a Republican in this country in the last 300 years or so, DM?

You misunderstand my point. I mean fashionable in the contemporary world as a whole, what with the successful republic that is the USA providing us with entertainment, cars, food, and such like or the European republics. Just look at Nepal now. People see a few successful countries which happen to be republics and decide to follow suit...

[Kralizec]

which, I think, is technically why we never formally joined the Kyoto accords. W just quit asking the Senate to sign it, after they'd said no 3 times already.

IIRC Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty shortly before the end of his second term, but it was never ratified. The senate was in GOP hands back then right?

[Marcellus]

I'm positive if there was a law that seriously impinged on the rights and freedom of her people she would not accept it.

The last time a monarch refused to give a bill passed by Parliament Royal Assent was very nearly 300 years ago. The chances of the monarch witholding Royal Assent today are slim to say the least. It is not the monarch's place, in a democracy, to decide what does and does not constitute an impingement on the rights and freedoms of the individual, or whether they could be justified. If the Queen refused Royal Assent on a bill passed by Parliament, then we would probably be a republic by the following day...so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea if she refused to give Royal Assent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the life of luxury they lead is precious little recompense for the hard work they do and the hell their people put them through.

We should all feel a little more grateful for them being there than we do at the moment.Wait, you pay some random krauts billions to live a life of exorbitant luxury and you feel guilty for not showing them enough gratitude for it?

I'll take the job for less recompense for all that hard work of signing some bills and waving at my subjects.

[Red Peasant]

The last time a monarch refused to give a bill passed by Parliament Royal Assent was very nearly 300 years ago. The chances of the monarch witholding Royal Assent today are slim to say the least. It is not the monarch's place, in a democracy, to decide what does and does not constitute an impingement on the rights and freedoms of the individual, or whether they could be justified. If the Queen refused Royal Assent on a bill passed by Parliament, then we would probably be a republic by the following day...so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea if she refused to give Royal Assent.

Spot on. Some people here live in la-la land, not Britain. The unreconstructed monarchists on this board are very funny. At least the foreigners have the excuse of ignorance, but the Brits should know better, even the younger ones.

[Red Peasant]

Wait, you pay some random krauts billions to live a life of exorbitant luxury and you feel guilty for not showing them enough gratitude for it?

I'll take the job for less recompense for all that hard work of signing some bills and waving at my subjects.

Voltaire knew that we are the best, even with dodgy German spongers on the throne, and he was proved right.

[Sjakihata]

80 years young!

Will this be a big celebration or is it more of a wave and smile event?

I thought we had an official happy birthday thread ~;p

[thrashaholic]

The last time a monarch refused to give a bill passed by Parliament Royal Assent was very nearly 300 years ago. The chances of the monarch witholding Royal Assent today are slim to say the least. It is not the monarch's place, in a democracy, to decide what does and does not constitute an impingement on the rights and freedoms of the individual, or whether they could be justified. If the Queen refused Royal Assent on a bill passed by Parliament, then we would probably be a republic by the following day...so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea if she refused to give Royal Assent.

So what if it was 300 years ago, the power is still there, and, to be fair, the royal assent sentence wasn't really the main thrust of my argument, or even a secondary or tertiary thrust.

All republicans seem to like doing is ignoring the good the royals actually do for us and continue to incorrectly and hilariously spout the same old turgid garbage arguments for abolishion like: "all she does all day is sittin' on 'er fat arse doing nuffink", or "she don't have no power, so what's the point?". Unfortunately they never seem to grasp that a president would end up doing exactly the same job, except that they'd cost a lot more, do vastly less of the charity work and we'd have to have yet another load of elections that large swathes of the population can not turn up to and Labour can commit postal vote fraud for.

Then, of course, there's the brilliantly bordering on racist argument of the royals being German... The last member of the royal family to be 'German' was Mary of Teck, who was in fact born in Kensington and a , she's our queen's grandmother; or I suppose you could be reffering to Price Albert who was German, he's our qeen's great great grandfather; or maybe to George I of Hannover, he was German, but also Scottish, being our queen's great great great great great great great grandfather; or maybe even to Alfred the Great, well he was Saxon, so by extension German, but then most English people are a part German themselves, so perhaps we should give the crown to the descendents of King Vortigern, the last 'British' king of Britain... Not only is calling the royal family German utterly ridiculous it's extension means that anyone who says it is also saying anyone who came to Britain in last 150 years isn't British something only the most extreme BNP members would espouse. Not only is our royal family part German, it is part English, Dutch, French, Austrian, Danish, Spanish, Welsh, Scottish etc. etc. etc.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So what if it was 300 years ago, the power is still there, and, to be fair, the royal assent sentence wasn't really the main thrust of my argument, or even a secondary or tertiary thrust.

A power which cannot be used, is not a power. Blair's government, to date, has passed 19 bills which have restricted or dissolved ancient rights of liberty and the Queen hasn't so much as coughed.


All republicans seem to like doing is ignoring the good the royals actually do for us and continue to incorrectly and hilariously spout the same old turgid garbage arguments for abolishion like: "all she does all day is sittin' on 'er fat arse doing nuffink", or "she don't have no power, so what's the point?". Unfortunately they never seem to grasp that a president would end up doing exactly the same job, except that they'd cost a lot more, do vastly less of the charity work and we'd have to have yet another load of elections that large swathes of the population can not turn up to and Labour can commit postal vote fraud for.

I think the fundamental argument that republicans would put forward is to challenge the idea that one person, born in the right place, has constitutional power (however limited) unavailable to anyone else. Being born should not confer exclusive rights over others. In addition, powers such as the Royal Prerogative which accrue from the Crown, but are exercised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown, give him sweeping powers over the subjects of the Crown. The PM is in effect, a monarch without the good bits. It's also the reason no party in power wants to discuss a republic - they would lose all the wonderful benefits of wielding monarchial power.

Very few British republicans of my acquaintance would level the charge that Her Majesty does nothing. Indeed, her industriousness is the biggest bulwark against republican feeling, or indeed serious constitutional discussion. But many Brits (even monarchists) seem to have a problem with Charles. Why is that, when he is born to be king?

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

[Red Peasant]

Some people yearn for a strong, autocratic leader who will cut out the democratic process and make everything better for them. Maybe Aristotle was right when he asserted that many people are just 'natural' slaves.

[doc_bean]

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

I'd say royalty is still better for international appearances (diplomatic and trade missions) than a president. However, the first born gets the crown rule is just a pain, because you don't always get capable people that way. A better way, perhaps, would be to appoint a king or queen (from the royal family, or not) for life.

BTW everyone talks about the privilege of being a royal, but in belgium, the king can not make a public comment without the (sometimes implicit) consent of the government, so he has to be very careful about what he says. The slightest objectional comment leads to talks about getting rid of the monarchy.
I wouldn't trade the freedom to speak my mind for their wealth.

[orangat]

The Queen has no real power when it comes to passing laws. She could veto a bill, then her right to veto would be repealed by the parliament in the next sitting. Then finally the bill would be tabled again and approved without needing her consent. So her sanity check seems like a one-shot weapon.

What exactly is the lowdown of the amount of money that the British royalty is getting per anum from the civil list. On one hand, I hear that spongers have a vast amounts of personal wealth, the Queen is worth more than 1billionGBP alone. Then on the other hand, monarchists say the royal family is self supporting.

[thrashaholic]

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

What's the point in electing a president then if their only function is to be a figurehead? It seems wholly uneconomic and open to all the abuses that come with politics, for example: if we were to just replace the queen with an elected president and transferred all her powers, duties and functions of state, what if said president refused to give 'presidential assent' to a bill passed by the elected house on a personal whim, you'd end up with precisely the same, if not greater, constitutional predicament, who is ultimately more powerful? What if the president refused to allow an elected prime minister of his rival party to govern? Having an a-political, unelected (one couldn't have elections without a certain degree of politics), head of state isn't an "objection to democracy" when there is no reasonable point in electing one and when an elected head of state could so easily obstruct democracy under the guise of that principal (afterall, the Declaration of Breda wouldn't apply to a president). Even with the restrictions of the British political system, a president, like a monarch, could wield supreme executive power, only would be more inclined to do so because they a) would feel they had a mandate to do so by virtue of being elected and b) are a politician.


But many Brits (even monarchists) seem to have a problem with Charles. Why is that, when he is born to be king?


I for one have absolutely nothing to hold against Prince Charles. I think he'll make a superb king and has only got a black reputation because of the strange and uncharacteristic adoration the British people seemed to have for Diana.

[rory_20_uk]

The only shame with Diana is that she didn't dissapear before she did.

I don't agree with many of the things Charles says, but I do respect the man and have no problems with him being my monarch.

I hope that he will provide more checks to the unbridled and undemocratic the current PM has accrued.

~:smoking:

[Duke Malcolm]

Wait, you pay some random krauts billions to live a life of exorbitant luxury and you feel guilty for not showing them enough gratitude for it?

I'll take the job for less recompense for all that hard work of signing some bills and waving at my subjects.

Not really. They pay the country many times more than the Treasury pays the Queen, something which Republicans haply ignore...

Monarchs are generally more renown than Presidents (unless the country whence the President comes is considerably influential, or is known for a less savoury reason, e.g. France, USA, the Russian Federation...). How many people will actually know the name of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, or perhaps Austria, or Italy? Turkey? India? Israel? South Africa (although Nelson Mandela is oft called President...)? Mexico? Brazil? et cetera, et cetera, so on and so forth and such like...

While people may not be familiar with King Harald of Norway (thanks to Din-Heru below for pointing out that it is not Haakon...), quite a few would recognise the names Gustav, Juan Carlos, Beatrix, and Elizabeth (Sweden, Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories, respectively) more than the presidents of the countries above...
Why? Because they are there for life, and their parent has been there for their life, and their parent for their life, and so on. Foreigners build a rapport through the media, state visits. It was an American who started this topic, wasn't it?
This gives the Monarch a better table to represent the country from. They are better recognised. Bush will be out in a couple of years' time and there shall be a new face in world politics for four to eight years. Then after that there will be another for four to eight years, and so on. Think how many presidents the USA will have had during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Each one so far has most likely have known or met the Queen. Each one to come will meet the Queen as long as She reigns, something which would give a lasting impression on the White House...

Edit: Correcting the name of His Majesty the King of Norway...

[Dîn-Heru]

[QUOTE=Duke Malcolm]

While people may not be familiar with King Haakon of Norway, .../[QUOTE]

I assume you are talking about the crown prince..? Because the current king's name is Harald V.. (Although his grandfather was called Haakon (VII))

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes, I suppose I do... Thank you for correcting my little error...

[Dîn-Heru]

Yes, I suppose I do... Thank you for correcting my little error...

No problem..~;)

Since I apparently am going to protect the Royal family in a few months time, I kinda had to make sure I had not missed out on such important information.. Could have been embarrasing on tuesday if I was not aware that we had a new king.. ~;)

[rotorgun]

While somewhat belated, I should like to add my hearty "Hail fellow well met!"
and many happy returns for the gracious Queen Elizabeth of England. While I may live in the United States I can still admire a leader so dedicated to her realm and the people of that realm. After living through over forty turbulent years of our American style democracy, I can honestly say that there is something to be said for the stability of a parlimentary monarchy. Although both systems have their shortcomings and various strengths, a monarchy particularly suits the English well. I also feel that this queen has fulfilled her role in an outstanding manner. I wish her the best, and will pray for her in my humble way: God bless the Queen of England.

PS: I also appreciate her love of horses, as I share this affinity for them as well. She is a promoter of the non-violent approach to their training and has insured that this is so for all of the Royal Household's horses, to include the Royal Cavalry's mounts. (Would love to ride with them someday!)

[Duke Malcolm]

Perhaps it might be news to you, but she is Queen of the United Kingdom, as her speech after devolution and her coronation oath so firmly assured us...

[Justiciar]

Ayup. Gets up my arse a bit when people call her "Queen of England" too. *Pats Malcolm on the head*

[Incongruous]

Yeah what is up with that?
It is rather yobbish.

[rotorgun]

Perhaps it might be news to you, but she is Queen of the United Kingdom, as her speech after devolution and her coronation oath so firmly assured us...

My apologies to all for this quite obvious ommision. Please accept my sincerest admission that I truly meant only to honor this great lady, who is indeed the Queen of the United Kingdom. Thank you for correcting this poorly educated American son. Once again, God save the Queen!

[Papewaio]

Pfffft.

What is more of a threat to democracy:

The British Royal family or the unelected EU rulership?

I'm a republican, but like a lot of Australians I turned down the chance to have a head of state which is not directly elected while Europe looks like they have gone the whole hog and just put an entire government in charge that is not directly elected.

I don't think the EU is a step forward along the democratic path, it only seems to further burecracy. On the other hand the British Commonwealth (and be defacto the Queen) has done far more in bringing about democractic reforms in many more countries.

[rory_20_uk]

The irony of what a benign autocracy can achieve, as opposed to a malignant "democracy"

~:smoking: