19 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwPeople go to Europe to see Kings and Queens. It's one of the things they have which we never did and never will. I suspect the tourism argument is legit.
I think those tourism figures are highly dubious. Tourists come for the history, and the history is still there.
The Queen might be good at her role. But if she is, it's entirely coincidental. She could be rubbish at it - she'd still be Queen. Charles gets to be King regardless of how good or how popular he'd be.
For me, though, all this is irrelevan ...[text shortened]... who their parents were? They can't - which is why I can't support anything they stand for.
Why don't they just set up in the tourism business?
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwThe whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that fitness to rule is irrelevant
I've heard a few people say this sort of thing, and it always irritates me. The whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that fitness to rule is irrelevant, and us plebs don't get a choice. If you want a choice, you want something other than a monarchy. After all, if you're chosing who would be best, why limit yourself to one family?
You can suppor ...[text shortened]... ne who supports it, yet thinks Charles should miss it, isn't being consistent in my opinion.
I disagree. The point is that the monarch's supposedly showed himself to be the biggest, baddest, best connected butt wooper around, and it's assume that these genes will continue through the family line. Supposedly God put the nobles down on Earth to protect the peasants, while the peasants are there to grow food and shovel cow crap.
The monarch wasn't chosen by the people as the best according to principle. God chose that family line and gave it super-genes to allow them to fill their role as leaders and protectors supposedly. Just another example of the wholesome influence Christianity has on politics.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwWhen one sees the sort of individuals who get themselves elected to Parliament by the proletariat the last thing we want is an elected President.
I'd get rid of them. You can argue about the pros and cons, but the bottom line is that I can't agree with an unelected head of state.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think the unspoken agreement is that she is given the power to do anything as Monarch as long as she doesn't use it. I bet she could still bend the ear of a good few politicians if she wanted to though.
And she can fire the Prime Minister of Canada. Right?
To be honest, there is no good reason for keeping the monarchy in place. Except that more people like it than don't like it, it brings in more money than if we didn't have it, and it gives Britain a bit more recognition around the world. And thats fine by me.
20 Jan 08
Interesting stuff, people. I was born and raised (thirteen years) in Canada. Technically the Queen is still our leader, and it's been voted on, and it was decided to keep putting her face on our money.
It still seems a bit foreign to me to think of a monarch making decisions about things they can't possibly have and direct knowledge of - farming for example. I would expect that the Queen has never ploughed a field in her life. However, I didn't realise that the royals' power was so limited. I guess I just assumed that the reason newly elected Prime Ministers needed to be invited to run the government was that the royals could actually veto them.
Although it does beg the question that if there was a socialist party in the UK, and they happened to be elected, would the Queen veto the candidate? In Ireland we have all sorts of funny parties who would never actually get into power, but if they did, it would be because they were voted for and no monarch could tell the people to stick their votes.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by Feastboy"Unspoken agreements" like that are dominated by people with strong personalities. If some Royal decided xe was going to exert xyr power xe has a legal basis for it and could pull it off. I suspect this anyway. I haven't studied the issue.
I think the unspoken agreement is that she is given the power to do anything as Monarch as long as she doesn't use it. I bet she could still bend the ear of a good few politicians if she wanted to though.
To be honest, there is no good reason for keeping the monarchy in place. Except that more people like it than don't like it, it brings in more money ...[text shortened]... have it, and it gives Britain a bit more recognition around the world. And thats fine by me.
(man these new gender neutral pronouns are ridiculous)
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3You mean like the Labour Party 🙂
Although it does beg the question that if there was a socialist party in the UK, and they happened to be elected, would the Queen veto the candidate? In Ireland we have all sorts of funny parties who would never actually get into power, but if they did, it would be because they were voted for and no monarch could tell the people to stick their votes.
I know, they're not exactly socialist at the moment. But they've been more left-wing in the past and been in power.
The monarch does have quite a bit of theoretical power. But as others have pointed out, I suspect there would be problems if they tried to use it.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3what's so good about steak-and-kidney pie?
I have had a bit of a debate with my girlfriend, and I feel it is only proper to settle it by circumventing media propaganda, and asking you, the people of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland -
If you were required to vote either for, or against the monarchy (obviously won't happen) would you vote for the royal family to continue in their c ...[text shortened]... not familiar with the United Kingdom's actual views on this particular question.
Thanks...