Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

ah, to understand their twisted minds.....

Edit: maybe because he has the requisite fancy old stuff...

Edit: I've heard that some bloke called Paul Dianno was better though.

[ShadesWolf]

monarchy

Why do we need to become a republic, we are already a democracy. The Queen has no powers so leave it be. She rules in name only. How many times has she overruled government ? Never.......

[Soulforged]

monarchy

Why do we need to become a republic, we are already a democracy. The Queen has no powers so leave it be. She rules in name only. How many times has she overruled government ? Never.......

Sorry to interrup but I think that the real problem has to faces: 1- It proposes a formal unequality. 2- It proposes a real unequality when the royal family has to do nothing to survive while "lesser" beings have to look for a job. That alone is enough at least for me.

[Incongruous]

WTF someone thinks were talking about David Dickinson!
Bugger off you musical **** **** NOOOOOOOOO!
WE MEAN BRUCE DICKINSON! Paul Dianno was crap compared to Bruce, go and listen The number of the beast, The trooper and Run to the hills.

[InsaneApache]

Yeah that's the guy....'cheap as chips' I like his haircut it's groovy.....

[Prodigal]

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



Tom Jones would make a better king than Bruce imnsho

[Duke Malcolm]

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/

[Slyspy]

I like the fact that a Greek claims his children will be British because they will be born here yet argues that the Queen is German. Ah the irony!

As for the equality issue I say GAH! There are plenty of people with inherited wealth and I don't ask for some of theirs. Bringing people down in life is the worst way to achieve equality IMO. So when we all sit in our government tenements waiting months for our government car we can look at the Windsors in the flat next door and be happy? GAH again.

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

[ShadesWolf]

1- It proposes a formal unequality. 2- It proposes a real unequality when the royal family has to do nothing to survive while "lesser" beings have to look for a job. That alone is enough at least for me.

Whats that got to do with monarchy ?
Dont governments propose formal unequality ?

and as for the other point Plenty of people dont have to work. So I see that this is an invalid point !

If you are trying to drag the rich man poor man thing into this thats a different discussion. Plenty of people have made money in one generation that then means future generations dont need to work. Thats capitalism.

[Marcellus]

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

[JAG]

Oh, please, not again. We'd barely shaken off the hair metal of the 80's in time to get blasted with this nu-metal garbage, and now we have short-haired, metalcore, trendy impostors running around.

Oi, oi, oi! I shall refer you to EA for the rebuttal and I shall state that there is nothing wrong with metalcore! You saying Sevenfold are crap? They might be right wing ****s but they make damn fine music.

[Soulforged]

Whats that got to do with monarchy ?
Dont governments propose formal unequality ?

Yes I know if you read my previous posts you'll see that I didn't say that Britain was a monarchy.

and as for the other point Plenty of people dont have to work. So I see that this is an invalid point !

No it's not. Formally they're above all other man. The fact that they've the possibility to survive without even adding anything useful to society is secondary to my point primarily because that kind of parasite appears in every country in various forms, Maradona for example.

If you are trying to drag the rich man poor man thing into this thats a different discussion. Plenty of people have made money in one generation that then means future generations dont need to work. Thats capitalism.

Exactly, I've seen a curious quote from one of the members that appears ironic really now that you said this...

[Incongruous]

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!

[InsaneApache]

I am Bruce the First and I say thus proclaim!

Good game, good game....nice to see you, to see you nice....higher or lower?...

Yes good choice I love Brucie.

[IMG][/IMG]

[el_slapper]

I'm sure there are lots of tourists in France who, looking at Paris from the top of the Eiffel tower, think, "well, it's good, but it would be so much better with a monarchy'.

(C) Someone who isn't me

They would not necessary think it, but they'd act like if. Would be one more reason to visit our beautiful & unequaled nation . Who would go to London without the Queen?????

[Spetulhu]

I'm sure there are lots of tourists in France who, looking at Paris from the top of the Eiffel tower, think, "well, it's good, but it would be so much better with a monarchy'.

Your punch-line leaves much to be desired. If you had ended the joke with "so much better without the French" you'd have a proper anti-French joke.

Sorry, it was my first thought when I saw that sentence. Not a terribly funny joke, but as French-bashing it's quite good.

[Idaho]

Society needs such fundamental reform that the royal family become minor details in comparason.

Saying that, they should be hung from the gates of Buckingham palace. I think if you are going to be a royal you should accept that public disgrace and an ignominous lynching are all a part of the bargain.

[Prodigal]

In the UK, the Scots aren't foreigners, but are a contingent of the UK.

Secondly, Wallace may mean Welshman, but that doesn't mean Sir William Wallace was Welsh.

Thirdly, Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce were unrelated/

HAHA! A bite!

I was thinking James I rather than ol' Brucey boy...And I'm thinking of a word Oh yes! PICT 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 who had invaded part of gaul or france or whatever.

So that sums up my thoughts on the current monarchy, & if you think I'm bitter about this don't even get me started about the italians

[Prodigal]

They would not necessary think it, but they'd act like if. Would be one more reason to visit our beautiful & unequaled nation . Who would go to London without the Queen?????

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

Sorry for 2 posts, but I really can't be bothered making multiple quotes in one post at the moment

[Geoffrey S]

A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity. As it stands the royalty in both Britain and Holland are almost an afterthought, with no real purpose or use; I'm not saying they should have actual powers over government, but they need to be seen. It's all good and well having a monarchy that's supposed to be closer to the people, but that entirely defeats the point: royalty has to be dignified, and this isn't the case at the moment. A monarch is the ideal representative of a nation and should be used more for that purpose both nationally and internationally.

So in short, a monarchy is fine by me as long as it serves some purpose; it has to be used for what it's good at. Ceremony should be increased, rather than holing them up in palaces for months on end.

What certainly does need to be regulated is strictly seperating the real royal family (husband, wife, kids) from the many irrelevant family members, who are frequently embarrassments and a thorough waste of space.

[doc_bean]

What certainly does need to be regulated is strictly seperating the real royal family (husband, wife, kids) from the many irrelevant family members, who are frequently embarrassments and a thorough waste of space.

I think we recently stopped paying those

[ShadesWolf]

Saying that, they should be hung from the gates of Buckingham palace. I think if you are going to be a royal you should accept that public disgrace and an ignominous lynching are all a part of the bargain.

Off with his head

[Prodigal]

A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity.

Does Princess Beatrice, of that scandy country, in a swimsuit count as a national identity? If it does, then I'm movin'

[Duke Malcolm]

HAHA! A bite!

I was thinking James I rather than ol' Brucey boy...And I'm thinking of a word Oh yes! PICT That's the one, remeber the Irish settlers who called themselves scots? Invited all the pictish kings to one place & killed them all?

The Kings of the Scots of Dalriada had a claim on the throne of the Picts, wince King Kenneth MacAlpin being the Grandson of a Pictish King. He just enforced his claim by eradicating the Pictish Army

Now (*thinks*) why would an Irishman who settled in "scotland" call himself Welshman...hhhhmmmm.

The people of South-West modern Scotland were British people, i.e. almost Welsh. In Wallace's time this land had been part of Scotland for almost 3 centuries, he was Scottish, I assure you

So you see my point? Unless James I happened to be a pict, (which would be pretty bloody unlikely considering what happened to all the pictish kings), then he was a scot, (which means that really he was originally irish), & he then became king of england, but, I'm pretty sure that the natives didn't call the place England (or anything remotly close to that), prior to an invasion of saxons, who in turn were conquered by a bunch of nordic refugee's who had invaded part of gaul or france or whatever.

I don't quite see your point, no...
King James VI & I was directly descended from King Kenneth MacAlpin, who was from both Pictish and Scottish stock.

[Soulforged]

A monarchy is ideal for ceremony, and if done properly does strengthen national identity. As it stands the royalty in both Britain and Holland are almost an afterthought, with no real purpose or use; I'm not saying they should have actual powers over government, but they need to be seen. It's all good and well having a monarchy that's supposed to be closer to the people, but that entirely defeats the point: royalty has to be dignified, and this isn't the case at the moment. A monarch is the ideal representative of a nation and should be used more for that purpose both nationally and internationally.

If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Malcolm,

Strathclyde was not part of Scotland until the early 11th century.

The Later 11th century saw its territory split between Scotland and England.

Welsh names were still commonly recorded in southern Scotland during the 12th century (Edit:actually, probably longer, I just don't have any other examples lying around).

The last time that the charters of the kings of Scotland specifically mentioned the Welsh of the kingdom was in the 12th century (edit: it was during the reign of William the Lion so may have been in the early 13th century).

The veneration of Welsh saints continued on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border for a long time (Edit:I'm guessing until the reformation).

I reckon William Wallace probably had a fair idea of his heritage.


Edit: P.S. I just mentioned Paul Dianno to wind up the hardcore Bruce-ites.

[Slyspy]

If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.

Ah that must be why Argentinia is such a world power! That whole statement is nonsense. Is a monarch more fictional than a president? Tradition is a stablising factor in society.

[Soulforged]

Ah that must be why Argentinia is such a world power! That whole statement is nonsense. Is a monarch more fictional than a president? Tradition is a stablising factor in society.

You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.

Side note: When was the last time you came here?
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.

[Geoffrey S]

If you need of fictionary means to mantain or increase national feeling then your nations is already over.A true nation strenghts itself and draws support from human relationships and true feelings nothing more.

That's important; but for people to identify with their nation something tangible is necessary, and a royal family is ideal for that purpose. Strangely enough, ceremony is something most European nations with their long and rich history lack, whilst there is comparatively quite a lot of it in the relative newcomer the US.

[Just A Girl]

Never liked the royals Before,
But since tony blair arived with His I love bush campaign.
I say
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.
ABOLISH UK DEMOCRACY.
"RULE BRITANIA BRITANIA RULES THE WAVES BRITAIN NEVER NEVER EVER SHAL BE SLAVES!! RULE...."