Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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.

Sorry, I miscounted the centuries... only 1 off, though... He may have known his heritage, but was still Scottish

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Malcolm, come on, ruled by the king of Scots, yes, Scottish, as in Gaelic, quite possibly not, or only partially so.

I know that you know this but...
Scotland seems to have been, at that time, a mix of ethnically Welsh, Scandinavian, Flemish, French, Gaelic (I could put Irish for that but, suffice to say, the medieval Gael was fully aware of his cultural ties to Ireland), English and the Gaelic/Pictish mixed population(which seems to have been overwhelmingly Gaelicised by this point, I did have a reference to a manuscript that refers to the last Pictish speakers in an area but I think it was before this time. It was also about rights to land between some Scots and some French clergy, the Scots seemed to have been saying "well, this land was inhabited by our forefathers who were Pictish until quite recently, so the land should be ours").

so, um, yeah, Scottish as in from the geographical area of the Kingdom of Scotland. Scottish as in from one of the many different ethnic groups in the kingdom. Scottish as in Gaelic? maybe, possibly not.

[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.

[Slyspy]

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.

Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.

[Soulforged]

Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.

I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's).... My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.

[Slyspy]

I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's).... My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.

I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity. Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity. To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity. Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example. Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family. The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.

* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.

[Soulforged]

I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity.

Show me one.

Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity.

What's that identity the people or plastic figures?

To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity.

Why don't you prove it? The identity is always in the people. No one should be forced to accept a fantasy in order to keep certain idea of nationality alive.

Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example.

Neither I by the Junta, or by this government. But you take the term opressed in an strict form, I'm taking it like you should, in an ample form, the state is there to opress, nothing else, and it even tries to mantain parasites in your society. However if you see it with good eyes, then go ahead, for me a society with social differences is not worth my job of everyday, even worst if those difference are mantained in such faceless manner.

Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family.

There's no "producers" in your economy? Operatives of factories, constructors, etc...

The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.

Well that's not true, without getting more profound on the subject, we can see that they're above the normal citizen, separating classes of man.

* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.

You'll do well to explain national expressions to me...

I've a question for you if you want to answer it: If the prince steals a car and then sells it, is he punished for thievery and blackmail? What will happen to the guy who lives in the slums (if any)? I'm asking in both aspects formal (what should happen) and real (what actually happens).

[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.