@ PVC; I think you get my point, though.
Printable View
@ PVC; I think you get my point, though.
I do, but I question it's validity because the Crown is basically a hereditory posession, like my father's land would be if he died. Remember, our monarchy has always been taken by the strongest, never gifted to a vassel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The issue is how you would divide the Queen "personal" and "offical" posessions in the event of dissolution; this isn't Greece, even if we became a Republic I doubt there would be much (if any) vindictiveness.
Oddly enough, I agree. Even though I'm definitely a fan of the republican form of government, if you have monarchy you might as well get some use out of it at least for as long as you have it. The monarch being above political parties, elections and populism in general can be an asset from time to time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Before Magna Carta and whatnot, the Crown's possessions included basically everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If you place singular emphasis on hereditary rights, Britain / the UK would pretty much have been a hereditary dictatorship with a totally useless, largely advisory parliament (if at all)
The Crown Estate is really just an eroded remnant of earlier days. They're not considered private property anymore, they're simply the goods and lands wich are used to cover the costs of the queen and some of her relatives. That's why the claim espoused by some here, that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary covers her own expenses, is disingenuous.
As for the golden handshake in the event of abolishment...let's not think ahead to much ~;)
What makes you think that the Queen will always follow the Will of the People©? Or that she dissaproves of breaking election promises? For all we know, she could be a staunch fan of Gordon Brown and she chooses not to show it to appear neutral :coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So you think they should make it her private property again so that she can cover her own expenses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Would it make a difference?
I also wonder why it bothers you how the British like to spend their tax money on their leadership? I mean they obviously like to have a queen so why should they not spend money on her? If someone likes to have a big TV and spends money on it, do you always go and tell them how a smaller TV could save them so much money? And I don't hate royals just because they're royals, if they're arrogant that's another thing but as long as they take their responsibilities seriously and behave nicely I don't see that much of a problem, and once they don't anymore, you can still get rid of them.
As i tried to say earlier, they also fuel the industries of the yellow press, presidents (with the exception of the american president perhaps) are far less interesting and romantic in comparison.
Well, a president can also be a fan of the prime minister, it's even more likely if they're both from the same party, the queen would be more neutral, especially as she'd work with many prime ministers during her reign and thus I could see her being less likely to get attached to any one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
It's up to the Brits themselves, I just felt like tackling some spurious arguments :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As for "my" queen, ideally the crown would be abolished as soon as she abdicates, so that her stupid son is forced to look for actual employment. Most people don't seem bothered about the monarchy as long as they stay out trouble, wich I can understand, but I don't understand how quickly they manage to forget once a scandal escapes from secrecy and reaches the press. I'm fairly sure that a big chunck of the (over) 110 milion E's we spend on our Royalty each year is to make sure that embarassing information is covered up.
There's no reason why a president shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a party (they've tried that in Romania, it doesn't work). Now with a non-executive president like yours, he should of course be above the average day-to-day bickering in the Bundestag, but that's not the same as being neutral. Of course not every politician is fit for the job, that's why they're picked for their skills and experience instead of who their mommy and daddy is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sure, a king/queen would naturally meet many politicians over the years. But does that mean that she doesn't have her own political opinions?
I assume that most kings and queens do have their private political opinions, and of course it's no big deal if they keep them to themselves. I just think it's rather odd that someone would think that because the elected politicians are all frauds, and that an unelected aristocrat should have more power because she obviously would make the right choice.
Being honest, I would support that. We turn into a republic as soon as she abdicates/dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Also, you don't have to have a president take-over. Just saying... :juggle2:
Get rid of the Queen. We need an Emperor instead.
Are you Dutch, by the way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
No, just your brother across the channel with a similar identical issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I suspected you were because of the Ferengi pic you used earlier (look in the bottom right corner)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Well, you have my sympathies for being British instead....:shame:
Just republican (with a small "r"), not a leftie though :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
surely the time to oppose a monarchy is right now, if the republican idea is what you believe in, waiting till the death of a long serving and vastly respected monarch and then sticking the knife in a new and untested monarch just makes you look sneaky, and as if you don't have the courage of your convictions.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Ah, yeah, we got this nobleman-guy here, forgot the name but he pees at pavilions, beats up reporters and seems to cheat on his wife, should make him the new Kaiser. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
No, I will do it right now, give me the power. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
However, since I don't, I would compromise with the death of the current head (she is old, not like it will be too long anyway plus you can get the changes implemented in time and ready), and takes the monarchy with her to her grave.
Nothing to do with sneaky. That is just baiting.
Don't strip the tribal chieftain of his power, you sneaky coward. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
What do you think this is? The 21st century!?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The top one is Albert II of Belgium, right?
accepted. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Well, she is the Queen of Papua New Guinea....Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Mr. Disraeli would like a word with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Actually, in Australia at least, changing to a Republic gains about 10-15% more support in opinion polling if you insert a 'sleeper clause' that says we will change over on the death of Queen Elizabeth II.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
accepted, but then i have no issues with Oz wishing to forge its own path in the world.
There's a statue of him in my local town :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Nice, he can send me a PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market