i think the queen is a great person, and great for the country as a whole :2thumbsup:
Printable View
i think the queen is a great person, and great for the country as a whole :2thumbsup:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
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...
I'm not suggesting a presidency. I'm suggesting the Royals work for all their luxuries..
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!Quote:
I'm only content with the monarchy because they bring in more money than they spend.
Gah. Eurotrash.
:help:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Move the Royals into a council house..
Erm, sure...happy...bithday?...:inquisitive:
This viewpoint always amuses me, as does the 'presidents bad, monarchs good' argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
We should all feel a little more grateful for them being there than we do at the moment.
Excellent post! Coudn't have put it batter...and I am not even English.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
...and again. Very accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
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
What is it with this myth that the Monarchy only does good for this country by attracting tourists to spend their money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
Prince Charles has a servant put toothpaste on his toothbrush. I object to paying for that!
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:
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?
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:
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
I'll take the job for less recompense for all that hard work of signing some bills and waving at my subjects.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Voltaire knew that we are the best, even with dodgy German spongers on the throne, and he was proved right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I thought we had an official happy birthday thread ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
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.