The Prince of Wales

[HoreTore]

Although not a Brit... I could tell he was basically a good guy when I meet and shake his hand on his tour of duty to Indonesia... Everybody could made mistakes, just try to give him a second chance to approve himself...

Bah. It's not just the man, it's the very institution itself.

Monarchy makes a mockery of our democratic system and values. We teach that everyone is born equal in standing. We elect our leaders and our representatives. Our society is based on the notion that the hard-working and smart people end up at the top, and noone will get far without hard work.

A king is born into his position. He has no need for any qualification whatsoever, from the moment he is born, he is chosen to be king. It really is shameful for our society to behave in this way.

[Cute Wolf]

Bah. It's not just the man, it's the very institution itself.

Monarchy makes a mockery of our democratic system and values. We teach that everyone is born equal in standing. We elect our leaders and our representatives. Our society is based on the notion that the hard-working and smart people end up at the top, and noone will get far without hard work.

A king is born into his position. He has no need for any qualification whatsoever, from the moment he is born, he is chosen to be king. It really is shameful for our society to behave in this way.

Any kind of government is originally intended for the good on its own people... even those "undemocratic monarch" that you've seen is actually someone who his ancestors were "elected" to made his lineage leaders for (hopefully) countless generations. At least, they should have some sense of duty, and your "real decision - maker" is the Prime Minister, who was elected, right? so denying monarchy rights of their title and institution, is basically the same thing when you rob a rich, but innocent man, all his riches, and then let him die nude in cold slums... If they still stand, it was because God still wants them to a good efffects... And to say they are useless, you just prove of your "disloyalty"...

[HoreTore]

Any kind of government is originally intended for the good on its own people... even those "undemocratic monarch" that you've seen is actually someone who his ancestors were "elected" to made his lineage leaders for (hopefully) countless generations. At least, they should have some sense of duty, and your "real decision - maker" is the Prime Minister, who was elected, right? so denying monarchy rights of their title and institution, is basically the same thing when you rob a rich, but innocent man, all his riches, and then let him die nude in cold slums... If they still stand, it was because God still wants them to a good efffects... And to say they are useless, you just prove of your "disloyalty"...

If only the Kings were innocent.... They have gained their power through murder, oppression, assassinations and a few genocides. If I am to remember their bloodline when thinking of them, I respect them, if possible, even less.

A man who is not elected by the people should not have the right to rule this country.

And all this talk about "disloyalty".... Yes, I'm disloyal as all hell, what about it? Why should I pledge my loyalty to someone just because they're inbred?

[Pannonian]

If only the Kings were innocent.... They have gained their power through murder, oppression, assassinations and a few genocides. If I am to remember their bloodline when thinking of them, I respect them, if possible, even less.

A man who is not elected by the people should not have the right to rule this country.

And all this talk about "disloyalty".... Yes, I'm disloyal as all hell, what about it? Why should I pledge my loyalty to someone just because they're inbred?

In this particular case, you'll have to remember that the current line of British monarchs gained their throne because the alternatives were worse. We tried republicanism, and ended up inviting back the son of the chap whose head we'd lopped off. Then we tired of his line, and invited a foreigner in, who was more to our liking. And when his line ended, we invited another foreigner in, this time to be a nice and harmlessly ineffective head of state, while the vizier held all the power. And from this last arrangement, English democracy was born. It might not be what we'd have chosen if we'd planned it from the beginning, but it's worked well enough for 300 years, so we're comfortable with this status quo.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Charles I blah Cromwell blah Charles II blah Cloggies blah Act of Union blah Krauts blahblah

No mention of the religious conservative with a taste for disco.

[Pannonian]

No mention of the religious conservative with a taste for disco.

You've already heard the punchline.

[HoreTore]

In this particular case, you'll have to remember that the current line of British monarchs gained their throne because the alternatives were worse. We tried republicanism, and ended up inviting back the son of the chap whose head we'd lopped off. Then we tired of his line, and invited a foreigner in, who was more to our liking. And when his line ended, we invited another foreigner in, this time to be a nice and harmlessly ineffective head of state, while the vizier held all the power. And from this last arrangement, English democracy was born. It might not be what we'd have chosen if we'd planned it from the beginning, but it's worked well enough for 300 years, so we're comfortable with this status quo.

Why should I have any respect for people who ruled during britains darkest days of oppression, ie. the colonial days?

Why should I have any respect whatsoever for people who don't think of africans and asians as human beings just like the rest of us?

[Beskar]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

Do the United States exist, or are they mere colonies, currently ruled de facto by usurpers?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

That's not a very fair version of events. Now, I must restrain myself before I derail another thread on probably one of the shortest-lived religious/political movements in history...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder where Pannonian's British republic existed. Britain under Cromwell was not a republic, it was replacing the King with a "Lord Protector" aka a King/usurper.

In the short period when parliament actually ruled the country, before the Cromwellian dynasty.

FYI: As I recall, the army offered Cromwell the crown, but he refused, probably because he knew he couldn't get away with it.

[SwordsMaster]

Bah. It's not just the man, it's the very institution itself.

Monarchy makes a mockery of our democratic system and values. We teach that everyone is born equal in standing. We elect our leaders and our representatives. Our society is based on the notion that the hard-working and smart people end up at the top, and noone will get far without hard work.

A king is born into his position. He has no need for any qualification whatsoever, from the moment he is born, he is chosen to be king. It really is shameful for our society to behave in this way.

To be honest, I think democracy itself has a pretty good track record of making a mockery of its own institutions.

And democracy can teach and preach whatever they want but the fact is not everyone is born equal - although I suppose the difference these days is genetic and economic rather than aristocratic.

In fairness if I could pick a head of government, I'd take Charles over Brown or Zapatero or Berlusconi, or even Merkel. He's highly educated, patriotic, has some kind of values, and he won't be grubbing money off the public coffers because he's only in power for 4-8 years.

[InsaneApache]

I'm no royalist. If the English civil war happened today I'd be right in their with me roundhead. However having said that, Brenda has been a very good monarch. She's seen prime ministers from Churchill to McRuin come and go and never put a foot wrong. An excellent example of a constitutional monarch.

The alternative is to have some career politico as head of state. President Blair! Oh pleeese! President 'so what' Balls or even President Thatcher. No, no, no. All dunderheads to one degree or another.

In fact the best arguement for keeping a constitutional monarchy is that no politician is acceptable as the head of state. After the expenses ferrago, Madge looks very good value for money.

[Furunculus]

67p/year i will willingly spend.

[HoreTore]

BAH! It wasn't that...!!!

I just mean the Bible says honour your leader, no matter who they are...

Nonsense.

To be honest, I think democracy itself has a pretty good track record of making a mockery of its own institutions.

And democracy can teach and preach whatever they want but the fact is not everyone is born equal - although I suppose the difference these days is genetic and economic rather than aristocratic.

In fairness if I could pick a head of government, I'd take Charles over Brown or Zapatero or Berlusconi, or even Merkel. He's highly educated, patriotic, has some kind of values, and he won't be grubbing money off the public coffers because he's only in power for 4-8 years.

Then the simple solution is:

Vote for him. That's all I ask. We have a democracy, we elect our rulers. If you want a King, fine, put it up for a vote, if 51% of the country agrees with you, then all will be good, won't it? If not, well, that's simply the will of the people.

[SwordsMaster]

Then the simple solution is:

Vote for him. That's all I ask. We have a democracy, we elect our rulers. If you want a King, fine, put it up for a vote, if 51% of the country agrees with you, then all will be good, won't it? If not, well, that's simply the will of the people.

That's silly. Why would my opinions on who should be in power depend on the butcher or the barber or the taxi driver from 5 towns away? That makes no sense. And how qualified is the taxi driver anyway to decide who is the best person to represent the country's interests?

I think that voting should definitely be weighted if allowed at all, and it definitely should not be universal. Voting, after all is a privilege, not a right.

Just because I'm born somewhere doesn't give me the right to decide the political will of that country anymore than it gives me the right to decide the political will of its neighbours, specially if I don't have the insight to make a good decision.

[HoreTore]

Never has the word "Gah!" been more appropriate...

[Viking]

That's silly. Why would my opinions on who should be in power depend on the butcher or the barber or the taxi driver from 5 towns away? That makes no sense. And how qualified is the taxi driver anyway to decide who is the best person to represent the country's interests?

I think that voting should definitely be weighted if allowed at all, and it definitely should not be universal. Voting, after all is a privilege, not a right.

Just because I'm born somewhere doesn't give me the right to decide the political will of that country anymore than it gives me the right to decide the political will of its neighbours, specially if I don't have the insight to make a good decision.

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

[HoreTore]

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

I wasn't going to respond to Swordsmaster, but hey, I'll leave a word:

Corruption.

The more we limit power, the more corruption we will have. Plain and simple. That's why every kind of dictatorship, aristocracy, etc is going to fail; it will always lead to corruption.

"But the British MP's just got caught", I hear you cry. Well, that's the reason democracy is far superior. They got caught. They won't get re-elected, and they won't have power anymore. In a dictatorship, everyone is free to steal as much money as they want, they're not going to face any consequences. In a democracy, they will.

[SwordsMaster]

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

So you're defending ignorance? Ignorance that gets to make decisions at a national level?

Corruption.

The more we limit power, the more corruption we will have. Plain and simple. That's why every kind of dictatorship, aristocracy, etc is going to fail; it will always lead to corruption.

Let's agree that power can lead to corruption in certain kind of people. Not all people in power are corrupt.
As I have pointed out before a man who holds a post for life is much less likely to be corrupt than a man who will only be in power for a limited time and must, therefore, steal as much as possible while he's near the money box.
On top of that, you are much more likely to have corrupt people in a multitudinary government than if one person holds power. That is a mathematical certainty.
Lastly, if you don't like your absolute leader you can try and kill him. Which becomes kind of futile if a new one gets elected from the same bench every 4 years.
Personally, I must point out there have never been such a thing as a corrupt king. There just hasn't because it doesn't make sense. Corruption for what? They are guaranteed life-long power! Why would they steal?
Even the Tsars of Russia in their day didn't collect as much money for their own needs as a percentage of total revenue as disappears in the pockets of crooked politicos every year.

And I'd like to point out that some of the most stable, sane and long lived states today are monarchies: Liechestein, Monaco, Netherlands or the Vatican. In fairness if we were to follow an example of government, the Vatican's would be the one to follow as it has survived for 2000 years. As far as governments go, that's a success story in my book.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And I'd like to point out that some of the most stable, sane and long lived states today are monarchies: Liechestein, Monaco, Netherlands or the Vatican. In fairness if we were to follow an example of government, the Vatican's would be the one to follow as it has survived for 2000 years. As far as governments go, that's a success story in my book.

3 of those 4 are exceptionally small states though, almost any government could last in them for a good length of time.

[Viking]

So you're defending ignorance? Ignorance that gets to make decisions at a national level?

Non. There is more than logistics when it comes to ruling a country. The question is what politicians should work for.

Perhaps the elite should decide that homsexual intercourse should be forbidden, as it increases the spread of HIV/AIDS, and thus reduces the labour force and weakens the country. Maybe this will have a severe impact on some people whom the barber or the butcher knows; such that they'd vote against any party that would implement this.

But obviously, it is not the lack of education that led the barber or the butcher to this opinion; because the question is a moral one, and not something that is related to education nor knowledge.