If you live in Great Britain, do you prefer a Republic or a constitutional monarchy as it is now?
Why?
Printable View
If you live in Great Britain, do you prefer a Republic or a constitutional monarchy as it is now?
Why?
Wrong forum?
Why? What other forum would it go in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvouz
And why is everyone posting nothing but questions?
Backroom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
:inquisitive: sniff... sniff.. politics?
To The Backroom with you!
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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:
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*).
I quite like the monarchy is it is right now. But that may be because I am a die-hard Royalist. ~:cheers: :bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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.
Bring 'em all down, Norman/German gits! We should replace them witha true English Monarch who shares his peoples qualities!
Hmmmm... Bruce Dickinson?
You also forgot the whole religious clap trap they bring with them but apart from that I whole heartedly agree with your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Bruce would be a great monarch, he would bring heavy metal to the masses!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
:D
Why you hatin on the monarchs JAG? There so cute (In an inbred sorta way.) GOD SAVE THE QUEEN:charge:
so JAG would accept a heavy metal monarchy...
...interesting
As long as it included my favourites ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
I dislike the Monarchy because it is inherently unjust and a stain on our country / any country.
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:
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:
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.
You mean a sort of King Idol?Quote:
The only reason to support monarchy would be if the monarch would be elected by the people.
Its a thought.
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)
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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".
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 ~;)
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.
I'm pretty sure that that's mostly the buildings they're squatting in.Quote:
bring in over a billion pounds in tourism a year
.
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:
.
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.Quote:
On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible
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..
Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Long live the Queen.
:charge:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
Perhaps the injustice you see is only that you're not the one getting paid to appear in public? ~;)
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
I bet he'd like to though. Or have them horsewhipped at least. Show the oiks their place.Quote:
Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob.
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.
You noticed that did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by TonkaToys
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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).
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.Quote:
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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.
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 ;))
It's pure genius. The marketing for the tourism adverts basically write themselves.Quote:
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..
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
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 '
As previously:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
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.
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 countryQuote:
And they are not even British anyway. So its not like they are guardians of any great tradition...
Yep, and this is fine for you and me. I am foreign myself but my kids wont be.Quote:
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
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 ~:)
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.
EDIT: EA Beat meQuote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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
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.)Quote:
and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.
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.
Chaaaaaaaaaaaaarge!!!:charge: let's not let this insult stay unpunished:duel: and this time, don't let the roastbeefs fire in first :knight:Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantMonkeyMan
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.
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.
Unjust system? I've managed to live my life so far without once being opressed by the monarchy. Parliament maybe but not the royals!Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
:2thumbsup:
.
I refer to my previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
~:joker: That's even better then British ShipQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
well PMS Warspite sounds like the missus ~:eek: .....I'll get me coat .... :hide:
Why on Earth would anybody want THIS guy to be King???????????.....~:confused: ~D ~:joker: ~:eek:
Dickinson
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
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.
Yeah that's the guy....'cheap as chips' I like his haircut it's groovy.....~:joker:
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:
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!
Whats that got to do with monarchy ?Quote:
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Yes I know if you read my previous posts you'll see that I didn't say that Britain was a monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
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.Quote:
and as for the other point ~:joker: Plenty of people dont have to work. So I see that this is an invalid point !
Exactly, I've seen a curious quote from one of the members that appears ironic really now that you said this...~:joker:Quote:
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.
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:
Good game, good game....nice to see you, to see you nice....higher or lower?...Quote:
I am Bruce the First and I say thus proclaim!
Yes good choice I love Brucie.
[IMG]https://img459.imageshack.us/img459/2685/gg061qx.th.jpg[/IMG]
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
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.
HAHA! A bite! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
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 ~;)
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by el_slapper
Sorry for 2 posts, but I really can't be bothered making multiple quotes in one post at the moment
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.